Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords](Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following. Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London Building Act (Amendment)[Lords]

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a fair wages clause is insisted on in connection with all contracts entered into with his Department?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The fair wages clause is included in all War Department contracts placed with contractors in this country for the supply of stores and the execution of services.

Mr. T. SMITH: If I submit a case to the right hon. Gentleman, will he look into it?

Mr. HACKING: Certainly.

MACHINE GUN PRACTICE, WORMWOOD SCRUBS.

Mr. WEST: 3.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the annoyance caused in the vicinity by the machine gun firing at Wormwood Scrubs on Sundays; and
Whether he will endeavour to restrict the practice to week-days?

Mr. HACKING: It is only occasionally that firing takes place on this range on Sundays. It is limited to the hours 11 to 1 o'clock, and this is the first time that a complaint has been made. I am afraid that I cannot promise that the range will never be used on a Sunday, but efforts are made to restrict Sunday practice as far as possible.

Mr. WEST: Is the Minister aware that nurses on duty at night in the nearby hospital, and numerous patients in the hospital, are frequently very seriously disturbed by this firing; and does he not think that at least on humanitarian, if not on sabbatarian grounds, he might consider not having these practices on Sundays?

Mr. HACKING: As regards the humanitarian side, I should have thought that the objection would be just as great on, say, Monday or Fridays as on Sundays. I can promise, however, that we will use the range as seldom as possible on Sundays.

Mr. WEST: As regards the question of Sundays as against weekdays, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, if these people are disturbed on six weekdays, they might be given a chance of sleeping on Sundays?

Mr. HACKING: This firing has only taken place on Sundays, so far as I know, on six or seven occasions since 1931.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask what is the reason for conducting this firing practice on Sundays?

Mr. HACKING: In the case of troops of the Territorial Army it is very difficult for them to carry out practice on other days.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (ARMOURED CARS).

Mr. SAVORY (for Major CARVER): 4.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Territorial armoured car units undergoing annual training this year are to be issued with petrol of the same grade as that previously issued; and whether, in view of the fact that the engines so fitted cannot function properly with low-grade fuel, he will consider supplying the usual grade?

Mr. HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

REMOUNTS.

Mr. SAVORY (for Major CARVER): 5.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number and value of remounts purchased for the Army during 1934 in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Free State, respectively; and how these figures compare with those for 1933?

Mr. HACKING: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


—
1933.
1934.


Number.
Value.
Number.
Value.




£

£


England
774
47,184
744
43,588


Wales
32
1,702
17
1,005


Scotland
14
841
25
1,530


Northern Ireland.
494
29,644
633
36,416


Irish Free State
168
5,712*
165
5,775*


*These figures do not include customs duty

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Captain McEWEN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the terms of reference of the Milk Reorganisation Commission now in session include power to investigate the administration of the existing milk marketing scheme?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The reference to the commission is very wide, and includes consideration of the working and administration of existing milk marketing schemes in all their aspects.

CARFIN HALL, MOSSEND, LANARKSHIRE.

Mrs. SHAW: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any information as to the purpose for which Carfin Hall, Mossend, Lanarkshire, has been purchased by Sir Arthur Rose, the
special area commissioner; and what use is to be made of the mansion and grounds?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed by the commissioner that he is taking steps to acquire this property with a view to its development as a social service and recreational centre for the inhabitants of the district; and that details as to the facilities to be provided are at present under consideration.

LANARKSHIRE POLICE.

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN): 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a complaint has been lodged with the fiscal at Hamilton alleging that Alexander Shields had been beaten up by the police in a cell at Hallside Police Station;if he is aware that Shields had to be treated by his medical adviser for over two weeks as a result of the severe mauling received at the hands of the police; and whether he will set up a public inquiry into the running of the police force of Lanarkshire, and also dismiss Chief Constable Keith from office?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): The complaint lodged with the Procurator-Fiscal related to a baton assault alleged to have been committed upon Shields in the street and not in a police station. I am informed that Shields was unfit for work for some time because of an injury inflicted by a police baton used in the street in the course of Shield's apprehension on a charge of breach of the peace. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend has no power to take action of the kind suggested. The Lanarkshire police authority is the statutory disciplinary authority in relation to the chief constable.

Mr. MAXTON: But surely there is power in the Scottish Office to inquire into the conduct of any local police force?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The police authority is the authority which has to deal with the chief constable.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Scottish Office have the last word in the appointment of any chief constable in Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir.

Mr. MAXTON: 10.
(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the death by drowning of John Burns, who was alleged to be taking coal from No. 1 Newton Colliery, near Cambuslang, if he is aware that Constable Teller, when in pursuit, took off his helmet and tunic in order to enter the water of the River Clyde, but that John Burns was carried away by the water and drowned; and if he intends to set up a public inquiry into this man's death?

The LORD ADVOCATE: My attention has been drawn to the death of a man named Robert Nicholson Burns by drowning under the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. Inquiries are being made into the occurrence and consideration will be given to the desirability of holding a fatal accident inquiry when a full report of the facts has been obtained.

Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to this question and the previous one, will the hon. and learned Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to make full inquiry into the whole treatment of the civil population by the Lanarkshire police, in view of the two very grave allegations that are made in these two questions and many other happenings throughout Lanark?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That matter does not seem to arise on this question, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines the position with regard to the objections lodged against the suggested regulation for the compulsory use of gas detectors underground?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Negotiations are still proceeding, and no decision has yet been reached. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as I am in a position to make a statement.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a panel of referees has been
appointed at any time under the Coal Mines Act, 1911; and, in case the negotiations on this matter break down, will he submit the case to a referee?

Mr. BROWN: That depends upon the discussions which are now proceeding on certain draft regulations.

Mr. SMITH: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, lays it down that, in the event of an objection being lodged against any regulation issued by the Secretary for Mines, it shall be submitted to a panel of referees, or to a referee? I am asking him whether, since the Act was passed in 1911, a panel of referees has ever been set up for this purpose?

Mr. BROWN: If objections are taken and negotiations follow, of course the referee must be called in if arbitration is necessary.

STATISTICS.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal exported from this country and the price per ton f.o.b. during the years 1933 and 1934; and the quantity of coal produced and exported and the price per ton f.o.b. from South Wales and Monmouthshire for the same years?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the
OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

—
1933.
1934.


Great Britain—




Coal exported:




Quantity (1,000 tons)
39,068
39,660


Average value per ton,
16s.1d.
16s.1d.


f.o.b.




South Wales and Monmouthshire—




Output of saleable coal (1,000 tons).
34,355
35,173


Coal exported:




Quantity (1,000tons)
16,064
15,918


Average value per ton, f. o. b
19s.9d.
19s.7d.

Mr. DAGGAR: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average output per person employed in the mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire for the year 1934, and the average wages paid per person for the same year?

Mr. BROWN: During the year ended 31st January, 1935, the average output of coal per person employed in mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 261 tons, and the average cash earnings per person employed during the same period was £119.

ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.

Mr. DAGGAR: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines the sums paid by British coal mines in rents, royalties, and wayleaves for the year 1934?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1934, the estimated amount paid by colliery owners in Great Britain in royalties and wayleaves, including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors, was £5,028,000.

IRON CONVEYORS (NOISE).

Mr. TINKER: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the complaints of miners about the noise caused by iron conveyors on the coal face; and whether it is the intention of the coal owners to gradually substitute rubber belting which is more suitable?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have from time to time received representations as to the prejudicial effect of excessive noise on the safety and well-being of underground workmen, and it is certainly desirable that everything possible should be done to mitigate it. I am glad to be able to say, therefore, that the use of belt-conveyors, which is already extensive, is rapidly expanding, owing to the constructional improvements effected in recent years, and that this tendency may be confidently expected to continue.

GATEWAYS.

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, owing to the introduction of coal-cutting machinery, the length of coal face between gateways has increased and where there is a. weighting of the roof there is added danger to the workmen owing to the greater distance they have to travel to a place of safety, i.e., the gateways; and whether he will consider fixing a maximum distance between openings or gateways?

Mr. E. BROWN: The use of coal-cutting machinery does not involve any extension of the distance between gateways, and I assume that what the hon. Member
has in mind is the use of face-conveyors. I am advised that the reduction in the number of gateways made possible by the introduction of such conveyors tends, on the whole, to ensure greater safety from falls of ground. Reference to the statistics in the Divisional Inspectors' Reports for the past few years will show that a large proportion of the accidents front falls of roof at the face occur at and about gate-ends. The possibility of such a fall of roof between the gateways as would cut off the escape of men working in a longwall face is, on the other hand, remote. In the circumstances, the answer to the last part of the question is "No."

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases now the distance between gateways is 100 yards; and that, should anything happen, such a distance makes it almost impossible for men to get to safety?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the distance is sometimes more than 100 yards, and is he quite sure that the distances are being shortened? I should be very much surprised to hear it.

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will read the statement I have made, he will find that everything there is precisely as the inspectors' reports show. With regard to the other point, I assure the hon. Member that these points, and all points arising out of the change-over to machinery, are being closely watched from day to day.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that a good deal of the controversy with regard to overtime is due to the fact that in some pits the distances are too long?

Mr. BROWN: In some cases mistakes were made in the early days of the new system, but improvements have been and are taking place.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the reason why there is such a long distance between these gateways is that it makes it cheaper for the coal-owner?

Mr. BROWN: I could not make any general observation on that matter, because the circumstances vary from day to day.

WAGES.

Mr. TINKER: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the coalowners have refused to negotiate with the Miners' Federation for the basis of a national wages agreement; and what action does his Department intend to take to bring both parties together to discuss it.

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." With regard to the second part, I do not know of any action I can take, short of introducing a system of compulsory arbitration, which will bring the parties together in the absence of mutual agreement.

Mr. TINKER: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the coalowners have persistently refused to meet the mine workers, and that the position is getting very acute; and will the Government do all that they can to bring them together, or, in default, introduce legislation?

COPPICE COLLIERY, HEATH HAYES (WORK MEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mrs. WARD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of mine workers awarded compensation against the Coppice Colliery, Heath Hayes, in the Cannock Chase coalfield, the ownership of which is at present under dispute, have received no payments for some considerable time; and if he can state why such payments have not been made?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have no information in regard to the circumstances described in the question, but I will cause inquiry to be made and communicate with my hon. Friend later.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

AUSTRALIAN MEAT (IMPORTS).

Mr. EVERARD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement on the negotiations with the Dominion of Australia regarding meat imports into this country

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The discussions with the
Commonwealth Ministers now in London are in a preliminary stage, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. EVERARD: If I put a question down this day week, will my right hon. Friend then be able to give me a reply?

Mr. THOMAS: I would prefer that my hon. Friend should ask me later.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any compensatory restrictions, in view of the increase in the number of cattle coming from the Irish Free State as a result of the coal-cattle pact?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not agree. The restriction in the case of the Irish Free State is a restriction due to political reasons, and if happily, as I hope may be the case some day, a settlement were arrived at, there would be an entirely different figure. I do not accept at all the statement about the increase in the number of cattle coming from the Irish Free State under the agreement. I think it was a satisfactory agreement.

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COMMITTEE.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the International Wheat Committee has held any meetings recently and if any decisions as to future policy have been reached?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): There has been no meeting of the Wheat Advisory Committee since that held at Budapest in November last.

IMPORTED CANADIAN CATTLE (SLAUGHTER, GLASGOW).

Mr. LEONARD: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the representations made by the Canadian High Commissioner and interested parties in Glasgow, asking for a re-examination of 44 Holstein breeding cows, 23 of which were condemned to slaughter a few hours after importation following a very severe voyage, solely on their conformation; that these cows were favourably reported on after examination by an experienced veterinary surgeon and the Glasgow Veterinary College as to health, had passed the tuberculin test of the Canadian
Government, and been accepted as suitable breeding stock by four representative dairy farmers; and whether he can state why the request for a re-examination was not granted?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the question, but I would point out that the animals were not rejected for veterinary reasons. I did not order a re-examination, because I was satisfied that the original examination was carefully carried out and that the decision that these animals were unsuitable for breeding purposes was well-founded.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these cows have calved, and that the calves have been deemed to be healthy and of good quality? In view of the fact that they represent a large percentage of the shipment, does he not consider that in the circumstances it is only fair that there should be a re-examination, in support of which there is very weighty evidence?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. I cannot undertake to have any re-examination of these cattle.

Mr. LEONARD: Is it not a fact that there has been no test to confirm this opinion and that it lies at the discretion of one man?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that that is why it is so difficult to have a re-examination. One must rely upon one's authorised officer. As the hon. Member has said, it is a matter of opinion, and we have to take the opinion of the expert.

Mr. LEONARD: Is it not the case that the type of the calves is sufficient to justify reconsideration of the matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, I am afraid not.

CHINESE EGGS (IMPORTS).

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the continued importation of quantities of Chinese eggs is causing growing indignation in both Scotland and England, not only on account of the serious effect these eggs exert upon prices but also because the public is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that Chinese poultry are housed and fed in a filthy manner; and will he take some action in the matter

Mr. ELLIOT: Imports of eggs in shell from China during January and February of this year were 246,000 great hundreds, as compared with 436,000 great hundreds for the corresponding period of last year, a. reduction of nearly 44 per cent. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the Government made proposals designed to secure an overall reduction, by voluntary arrangement, of 10 per cent. in foreign imports during the first quarter of the year. Imports of liquid eggs from China have also been considerably lower than during the corresponding period of 1934. With regard to the quality of Chinese eggs, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, on 14th March to questions on this subject.

Captain RAMSAY: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that the importation is still having an effect on prices, he is taking any further steps in the matter?

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the main reason for the big reduction of 44 per cent. in the importation?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot say that without notice.

Captain RAMSAY: May I have an answer?

Mr. ELLIOT: The question of the effect of imports as a whole upon the situation is being carefully watched by the Government. I am afraid that it would not be possible to take discriminatory action against one consignment.

WHEAT OFFALS (FLOUR CONTENT).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that wheat offals produced in this country only contain 4 per cent. of flour, whereas Continental offals include 7 per cent. of flour; that in order to procure food of sufficient nourishment poultry producers are obliged to depend largely on foreign offals; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a larger proportion of flour is left in British offals?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have no information to the effect that the quantities of flour contained in British and Continental wheat offals respectively are so low as
stated in the question. Furthermore, my present information does not show that the standard quantities of wheatings and super wheatings now produced by Britain are inferior to wheat offals imported from abroad. I understand, in fact, that in their administration of the Wheat Act it is the practice of the Wheat Commission to tolerate at least 15 per cent. of flour in parcels described as "wheat offals," and that full use is made by British millers of this tolerance. The third part of the question would not seem therefore to arise.

Duchess of ATHOLL: As the information in the question was given to me by men engaged in the scientific breeding of poultry in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain whether the percentages mentioned are correct?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have given the information that is in my possession. If the Noble Lady has any information to the contrary, I shall be glad to examine it.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing feeling among farmers that they would rather have more British offals and keep out imported flour?

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the working of quotas has been under investigation by the Government; and whether it is anticipated that there will be any change of policy in this connection in the near future?

Major CARVER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the possibility is under consideration of abandoning all existing quota schemes for controlling the import of agricultural produce into this country and substituting other methods, in view of the abuse of these quotas; and, if so, by whom such examination is being carried out and by what date it is anticipated that the change will be made?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As the Lord President of the Council informed the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. H. Johnstone) on the 28th February, the Government have often stated that in their view
quantitative regulation of imports is not necessarily in all cases, and, I may add, for all time, the most appropriate method of assisting the home agricultural industry. The circumstances of each case are different, and it would not be possible to lay down a general rule. A wide variety of methods have, in fact, been adopted to meet the differing requirements of the industry under widely variable conditions. The Government have the situation under constant review and if, at any time, it appears to them, in any particular case, that the desired object can be better achieved by some other method, they are always prepared to make such changes as may be necessary as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. CHORLTON: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take with reference to the increased import of exceptionally low-priced Japanese shirts and the increase of unemployment arising from it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of an increase in the import duty on these goods is, in the first instance, one for the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is open to the interests concerned to apply to that committee.

Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the difficulty, of which my right hon. Friend will be 'aware, that small industries like this have in getting together to formulate an application, will he try to help in some way, because of the unemployment which arises from this competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No matter how small an industry may be, I am sure the committee will give them a hearing.

Mr. CHORLTON: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures for the imports of Japanese cotton goods into this country for January and February; if there is any fall over similar periods last year; and if any fresh action is proposed to modify the rate of import duty now in force?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total value of the imports of cotton yarns and of manufactures of cotton, other than apparel, in January and February, 1935, was
£361,390, of which the amount consigned from Japan was £ 32,732. The corresponding figures for 1934 were £ 371,287 and £ 21,031. It will be seen that the imports from Japan represent a small proportion of the total imports from all sources, and that these total imports have declined. The question of any modification of the rate of import duty, if the cotton industry should consider modification necessary, is, as my hon. Friend is aware, for consideration in the first instance by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. CHORLTON: In view of the particular reference to the smaller firms dealing with made-up goods like shirts, is it not significant that the import of Japanese goods is eight times more this year than it was last year, taking it on the January basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman not take some steps to assist these small industries to put their case before the Advisory Committee?

WHEAT FLOUR (IMPORTS).

Captain RAMSAY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the import of wheat flour, in contradistinction to wheat in grain, is detrimental to important interests of this country, in that British mills are thereby sidetracked and also the valuable wheat offals are lost to this country; and whether he will take steps to discourage the importation of wheat flour in favour of wheat in grain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As regards the first part of the question I would refer to the answer given on the 25th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. With regard to the second part, my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt be aware that the Import Duties Advisory Committee both last year and in 1933 considered an application for an additional duty on foreign flour and decided to make no recommendation.

JUBILEE BADGES, MEDALS, EMBLEMS AND SOUVENIRS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for separate statistics to be kept of the imports into this country during the present month and the following two months of all badges, medals, emblems, and souvenirs for sale in con-
nection with the celebration of His Majesty's Silver Jubilee; and whether he will also have prepared for circulation a list of those importing such articles, so that retailers may be able to avoid distributing them if they wish?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that my hon. Friend's suggestions are impracticable.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not possible for the Government to tell the country who are the super-patriots who are buying this stuff from abroad?

Mr. HANNON: Will my right lion. Friend issue a statement to the Press of the country discouraging the sale of this foreign rubbish?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does not the Co-operative Society buy stuff from abroad?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Co-operative Society does not buy rubbish like this, but good material.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any further protest from the Canadian Government with regard to the revised contract for the importation of timber into this country for 1935 by Timber Distributors, Limited; and whether he proposes to take any further steps to secure fair treatment for Dominion importers of timber in this connection?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I received yesterday a further communication from the High Commissioner for Canada. It is now under consideration.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the net result of the elimination of the fall clause in the new contract is that all Russian timber is coming in 10 per cent. cheaper than timber can be economically be produced either in this country or in the Dominions?

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the position of English manufacturers of doors and the adverse effect which they are experiencing owing to the unfair and unreasonable competition from Canada?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The contract which has been made between Timber Distributors, Limited, and the Soviet Union is not for manufactured articles.

HON. MEMBERS: Canada.

CHINA.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent decline in British trade with China and of its value to this country through the balance being in our favour, he will consider the possibility of improving the present position by means of effecting some new trade agreement with China that will lead to better mutual co-operation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Recent statistics show an improvement in our trade with China. I do not think it would be useful to enter into trade negotiations at the present time, but I am watching the situation closely.

Liuet.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not undertake any further negotiations with China to the prejudice of the British poultry industry with regard to the importation of Chinese eggs?

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Mr. MANDER: 50.
asked the Lord President of the Council the present position with regard to the possible introduction of an enabling Bill for a levy on all firms in an industry for co-operative research; and whether the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now received replies from the existing research associations?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now received replies from practically all existing research associations on the subject of whether, in their opinion, the industries they serve are likely to favour the introduction of an Enabling Bill for a levy on all firms in an industry for cooperative research. The replies indicate that there has been some change of a, favourable nature towards the principle involved, but the trend of opinion expressed does not lead to the hope that the powers of such a statute would be widely exercised.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there appears to be a majority in favour of legislation?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LOSSES AT SEA (INQUIRY).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inquiry, under Lord Merrivale, into the recent loss of certain British ships will be solely confined to the causes of those particular losses, or whether it will be empowered to examine the general provisions in existence at the present time to prevent ships proceeding td sea in an unseaworthy condition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: While the Formal Investigation into the recent loss of four British ships will be confined to those particular losses, the Court will have before it the existing general provisions applying to the class of ship to which the ships in question belonged.

SEAMEN (STATISTICS).

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the approximate numbers, respectively, of British-born seamen, seamen who are British subjects but not British-born, and alien seamen in the British mercantile marine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of sea men employed in British ships is ascertained only at a date when a census of seamen is taken and the latest census at which any subdivision of British subjects was made is that relating to seamen employed on 26th April, 1931. I am circulating the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with certain less detailed information obtained at the census taken on 15th June, 1933.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the next census is due?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that it is due about the middle of this year, but I am not quite sure.

Following are the particulars:

Seamen employed on the censal dates 26th April, 1931, and 15th June, 1933, on sea-trading vessels registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.


—
April26th, 1931.
June15th, 1933.


British subjects  (other than lascars):




Born in the United Kingdom.
98,600
Not separately enumerated.


Born in other parts of the British Empire
9,387


"British" undefined, naturalised and natural born British subjects
811


Nationality not specified and born at sea
84


Total British seamen
108,882
96,916


Foreigners (other than lascars).
11,204
7,661


Lascars (British subjects and foreigners)*
49,125
42,475


Total seamen
169,211
147,052


* Information as to the nationality of lascars is not available.

Mr. NICHOLSON: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many alien seamen and coloured seamen, respectively, have been signed on at British ports during the last 12 months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information available is as follows:
Engagements at ports in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the year ended 31st December last show:


Foreigners, other than Asiatics and Africans
6,724


Chinese
1,584


Arabs
3,101


Other Asiatics and Africans
4,722


The total number of engagements was 407, 472.
The figures relate to the number of engagements and not to individual seamen.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Does my right hon. Friend realise the great uneasiness and resentment that exists in the minds of British seamen when they see their jobs being taken by foreigners and coloured seamen, and will he direct attention to the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, some steps have been taken, and I have no doubt that more will be taken to increase the amount of employment of British seamen to the exclusion of others.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many in the figures given were subjects of the British Empire

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot; I am not sure that we have that sub-division.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated in the Press this morning that 1,000 naturalisation forms were handed out to foreign seamen yesterday in Cardiff, and, if I give him particulars, will he let me have an answer by Thursday, as I intend to take up the Matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that I could let the hon. Gentleman have an answer, but I shall be glad to have any particulars which he can send to me.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decrease in the employment of foreign sailors is not so large as the decrease in the employment of British sailors in the last few years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite likely, because the number of British sailors is very much larger.

Mr. WEST: The percentage, I mean.

WRITE STAR LINE, LIMITED (LIQUIDATION).

Mr. WHITE: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is anticipated that any loss will fall upon the Treasury as a result of the liquidation of the White Star Line; and, if so, to what extent?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. The White Star Line, Limited, have not
borrowed any money under Treasury guarantee. The loans of that character raised by the subsidiary company, namely, the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, are not affected by the liquidation to which the question refers.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 31.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the sufferings of certain incapacitated war orphans as a result of the regulation which precludes allowance being paid after the age of 21; whether he will seek authority to enable allowances to be continued in the case of totally incapacitated war orphans for so long as the infirmity exists; whether he will consider specially the case of Ada Marion Edwards, daughter of the late Private William Edwards, No. 5,765, Middlesex Regiment, who died on 30th November, 1934, in view of the fact that this war orphan is suffering from curvature of the spine and paralysis of the legs and is unable to contribute to her self-support?

Mr. JOHN: 32.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the position of certain incapacitated war orphans as a result of the regulation which precludes allowance being paid after the age of 21; whether he will seek authority which will enable allowances to be continued in the case of totally incapacitated war orphans for so long as the infirmity exists; and whether, when looking into this matter, he will specially consider the case of Lily Maud Roberts, daughter of the late Driver Thomas Roberts, No. 109,779, Army Service Corps, who died on 15th September, 1924, as she is suffering from cardiac debility and is unable to contribute in any way to her self-support?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I understand that both the young persons referred to are living with their mothers, who are in receipt of a widow's pension under the Royal Pensions Warrants. For the reasons given by me in my reply to similar proposals made by the hon. and gallant Members for Northampton and Coventry on the 27th ultimo, of which I am sending copies to
the hon. Members, I am unable to adopt the course suggested.

Mr. JOHN: Seeing that the Government made it a national responsibility to maintain these children when they were young, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that it is essential on the part of the Government to extend their obligations to those who are incapacitated, because they are not being maintained and would have been maintained if their fathers had not made the supreme sacrifice?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, as the hon. Member has referred to the Government, I would remind him that all Governments, including the last Government, have been in agreement with the decision which I have just announced. With regard to this particular point, I could not accept the proposal to give these children war pensions for life for infirmities which were not attributable to the war, when ex-service men themselves have no right to pensions in similar circumstances.

Mr. JOHN: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that their predicament is on account of the War and their fathers having been killed in the War?

Major TRYON: The infirmities of these men and women who have now grown up are in no way due to the War.

Mr. JOHN: If the War had not occurred, would not some of the infirmities have been—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander.

POST OFFICE (CONTRACT, BURSLEM).

Mr. MANDER: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Messrs. Corbett Goodwin, Limited, cask manufacturers, Burslem, are paying for Post Office contracts a rate of wages of Is. an hour, whereas the rate as agreed by the National Joint Industrial Council of the cooperage industry is 1s. 5d. per hour; and whether he will take steps to remove this firm from the list of Post Office contractors in view of their failure to observe the terms of the fair wages clause?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I have already had full inquiry made into this matter. It appears that no agreement governing wages is recognised by cooperage firms in the Potteries and that Messrs. Corbett Goodwin, Limited, pay their coopers rates of wages not less favourable than those prevailing amongst good employers in the industry in the district. As, therefore, the conditions of the fair wages clause in their contract with the Post Office are being duly observed, there is no case for removing this firm from the list of Post Office contractors.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not usual for the Post Office to recognise the decisions of joint industrial councils for the purposes of the fair wages clause, and is not this a direct infraction of the national
agreement?

Sir E. BENNETT: Not at all. Where there is a. national wage rate and it is recognised in a district, it is binding on Post Office contractors, but where a national rate is not recognised in a district the Post Office is guided by the action of good employers in the district.

Mr. THORNE: In consequence of the differences of interpretation of the fair wages clause, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing the heads of Departments together to agree that the wages recognised by the joint industrial council should be regarded as the fair wage?

Sir E. BENNETT: I will consider that.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early date.

ARREST, SHEPHERD'S BUSH (LOITERING).

Mr. WEST: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Trinder, of Shepherd's Bush, who, together with two friends, was charged at Acton Petty Sessions with loitering; whether he is aware that two plain-clothes officers testified that the accused entered a Chiswick shop at noon and came out with a parcel and one of them looked into a motor car; whether, as the magistrate
dismissed the case after only hearing police evidence and as no evidence was given against Trinder, who had to pay a solicitor five guineas for his defence, some recompense will now be made to this young man of good character who has suffered injury; and whether, in view of this further evidence of unwarranted police activity against decent citizens, he will take steps to have these practices reviewed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have carefully investigated the circumstances of this case. In discharging these men the chairman of the magistrates added that in the opinion of the bench the police were quite right in making the arrest and bringing the matter before the court to be investigated. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the case is not one in which the payment of compensation would be justified.

,Mr. WEST: Is the Home Secretary aware that I was present in court and that the chief grounds of police suspicion were that two of the young men had gone into a shop and come out with a parcel, but, on being searched, they discovered a paid bill; that one of the young men was carrying an overcoat which on investigation proved to be his own, and that it was also alleged that they looked into a motor car. When the evidence was heard the magistrates immediately dismissed the case. In view of the humiliation caused and the financial interests involved, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these men should be recompensed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that I have looked very carefully into this case and have considered it, but, in view of what the magistrates said, I had no alternative but to take the course that I have taken.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little deeper into this matter, especially in view of the fact that several cases of this kind have arisen within the same area in London, and that there seems to be something wrong somewhere?

Mr. MAXTON: May I press the Home Secretary? Is he not aware that these arrests for loitering in London are becoming very frequent? Will he make some inquiry into the number of arrests for loitering that have been made?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is part of my duty to go carefully into all these matters. When this particular case came before the court the magistrates deliberately stated that in their view the arrest was correct and that they should be brought before the court.

Mr. WEST: Does the question not arise—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the matter.

Mr. WEST: May I not ask the Home Secretary a further question? It is a matter of great importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already asked his questions and received answers.

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (ENFORCEMENT).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of his letters to magistrates exhorting them to enforce the speed limit by penalties, he can state whether he has sent any letter in the last four years to magistrates in general calling their attention to the need for enforcing the ordinary laws as regards motorists; and when such communication was issued?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. A circular was issued on 22nd January, 1934, inviting the views of magistrates as to the desirability of extending the power to suspend driving licences; and another circular was issued on 28th September drawing attention to some of the new provisions contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1934. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these circulars.

ROYAL ALBERT HALL.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the use of the Royal Albert Hall has been repeatedly refused to certain political organisations while it has been granted to others, he will introduce legislation to amend the Royal Albert Hall Acts so as to prevent any political considerations affecting the choice of persons to whom the use of the hall is granted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is discrimination against organisations holding certain views, and will he inform the trustees that that must cease?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The Albert Hall Acts are Private Acts for which no Government has any responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BRITISH-BORN SEAMEN.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour how many British-born seamen are at present unemployed?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The number of unemployed seamen, aged 18 and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 28th January, 1935, the latest date for which figures are available, was 37,58.5. Separate statistics in respect of British-born seamen are not available.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are nearly 50,000 foreign and coloured seamen employed on British ships, and has his Department any plans for putting British sailors into those foreign seamen's jobs?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures quoted include British coloured seamen who are domiciled in Great Britain?

Mr. STANLEY: I have said that separate statistics on the point are not available.

DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons receiving benefit from the unemployment insurance fund, and the number receiving payments from the Unemployment Assistance Board, in the County of Durham, including the boroughs?

Mr. STANLEY: At 25th February, 1935, the numbers of persons on the registers of employment exchanges in the County of Durham, including the associated county boroughs, with claims admitted for insurance benefit and unemployment allowances were 41,229 and 80,532, respectively.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose to take steps to find work for these people?

Mr. STANLEY: The matter is receiving constant attention.

Mr. BATEY: When will you make a beginning? You have done nothing yet.

FEE-CHARGING AGENCIES.

Mr. THORNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour how many countries have signed the draft convention in connection with fee-charging agencies; whether His Majesty's Government are signatories; and, if not, whether he will state the reason why they did not sign the draft convention

Mr. STANLEY: So far as I am aware the international labour convention concerning fee-charging employment agencies has not yet been ratified by any country. The reasons why it has not been ratified by His Majesty's Government are set out in a recent White Paper (Cmd. 4846) of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. THORNE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman sufficient evidence in his office to prove the very unfair way in which these fee agencies are dealing with people who apply for work?

Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member will look at the White Paper, he will see our reasons set out in full.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Earl WINTERTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the House before the Easter adjournment to discuss the adequacy of the defences of this country and the coordination of the services, in view of the altered conditions in Europe since the last Debate?

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent developments in the field of foreign affairs, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the joint responsibilities of the three defence services with regard to national and imperial security and with regard also to our obligations under the Covenant and the Treaty of Locarno?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that in the present state of public business the Government canont give a special opportunity for a Debate on Imperial Defence.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the Prime Minister aware that the increases in certain Continental forces raise serious doubts in the minds of many of his supporters as to whether the relative strength of British forces as laid down by the Lord President of the Council in his speech last November is being maintained? When will the House have an opportunity of considering this question, which is of fundamental importance?

The PRIME MINISTER: There are various occasions on which the question can be raised, and perhaps the right hon. Member will have a word with me on the matter.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a recent statement by the Secretary of State for War, who pointed out the serious depletion of the forces of the Government in arms, personnel and reserves? Is it not essential that this vital matter of national defence should be discussed by the House of Commons at an early date?

Mr. MAXTON: Are we to take it that the visits of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal to the Continent have not substantially altered the situation?

Brigadier-General NATION: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, during the visit of Dominion representatives to this country for the Jubilee, opportunity will be taken to discuss the question of closer co-operation between the defence services of the United Kingdom and those of the Dominions, with a view to obtaining united action in all matters relating to Imperial defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: As was stated in this House by the Lord President of the Council on the 30th July last, advantage will be taken of the presence of Dominion representatives in this country to discuss personally and informally any questions of particular importance outstanding. No precise agenda has been laid down but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that questions connected with defence will not be overlooked.

Captain A. EVANS: Will His Majesty's Government in this country take the opportunity of suggesting to the Dominions that a contribution from their country towards the cost of Imperial defence would be very opportune at this moment?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that a representative of the Territorial Army will attend these deliberations?

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the present hardship to lay tithe-owners because the valuation for rating purposes of the tithes is based on the full tithe payable and the lay tithe-owners are being compelled to pay rates on the full amount, which in many instances they cannot collect, less a small percentage for costs of collection which is less than the actual costs incurred, and that the Inland Revenue realise these difficulties and grant refunds of income tax; and will he, pending the report, of the Tithe Commission and possible legislation, take some steps to remedy the position?

Mr. COOPER: I am aware of the grievance, and I understand that in some parts of the country tithe rent-charge is being reassessed annually so as to take account of difficulties in collection among the factors which influence its valuation for rating. I cannot however hold out hope of any Government action in anticipation of the report of the Royal Commission which is now sitting.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the grounds upon which the British Government has been exercising pressure on Abyssinia not to take her dispute with Italy to the League of Nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Government have not been exercising any such pressure.

Mr. THORNE: When the Foreign Secretary meets Mussolini will he be good enough to ask him what his object is in regard to Abyssinia?

Sir J. SIMON: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. THORNE: And give him my compliments.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has no objection whatever to Abyssinia bringing her case before the Council of the League of Nations?

Sir J. SIMON: My original answer was that the British Government have taken no action.

GOLD COAST (CRIMINAL CODE ORDINANCE,1934).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was asked to approve of or advise upon the Criminal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1934, which received the assent of the governor of the Gold Coast Colony on 31st March, 1934; and, in particular, whether his approval was given to Section 4 (2) (e) of the said Ordinance, which provides that any person who, being found in possesison of any newspaper, book, or document, or any part thereof or extract therefrom, containing seditious words or writing, does not prove to the satisfaction of the court that at the time he was found in such possession he did not know the nature of its contents, shall be liable to imprisonment for one year or to a fine not exceeding £50?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The draft of this Ordinance was submitted to me in the first instance and my approval was given for its introduction into the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast. Subsequently, the Ordinance, as passed, formed one of the topics discussed with the Gold Coast, and Ashanti Delegation which was received by me last summer. The Ordinance had my full approval. The hon. Member will observe that Sub-section (9) of the Section to which he refers provides that no proceedings may be instituted under that Section without the written consent of the Attorney-General.

Mr. FOOT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it ought to be necessary, in a serious charge of this kind, for the prosecution to prove not only possession but also criminal intent? Further, can he point to any British Statute which enacts legislation of this kind?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Act is an exact counterpart of legislation, perhaps of a rather more stringent kind, that has been in operation in Nigeria since 1927, against which there has never been any objection or criticism whatever.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any evidence of serious sedition in the Gold Coast or Nigeria which makes such drastic restrictions on the liberty of the Press necessary?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Lady had seen, as I have seen, the filthy, blasphemous and seditious stuff which has been imported into that country, I am sure that she would join with me in taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent its circulation.

Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of my question, as to whether it ought not to be necessary for the prosecution not only to prove possession of literature of this kind but also criminal intent?

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS.)

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 6.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement in regard to the military review which is to be held in connection with the Silver Jubilee; whether this will be open to the public; what will be the approximate price of seats and the amount of accommodation available; and whether special arrangements will be made for Members of Parliament?

Mr. HACKING: Subject to His Majesty's convenience the Aldershot review will be held on 13th July. I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce detailed arrangements, but it is hoped to be able to make arrangements for the accommodation of Members of both House of Parliament.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, despite the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, blind and block booking is taking place to an increasing extent, and that this is the sequel to the development since 1927 of the system of large theatre circuits; and whether he contemplates any amendment of the Act to deal with this situation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee have this question under consideration and any recommendations which they may make will receive my careful consideration.

HOSIERY WORKERS (WAGES).

Mr. CAPORN: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House any information as to the current rate of wages now being paid to, and the normal hours per week worked by, hosiery workers employed in the manufacture of artificial silk stockings in Germany and in the United Kingdom, respectively?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret that I am not in possession of comparable information as to the rates of wages and hours of labour of workpeople engaged in the manufacture of artificial silk stockings in Germany and in the United Kingdom.

BILLS REPORTED.

NATIONAL GALLERY(OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords]

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND LAND PURCHASE (WINDING UP) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Drummond-
Wolff; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hammersley.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Superannuation Bill): Brigadier-General Spears; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Moreing

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the establishment of a criminal lunatic asylum in Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith." [Criminal Lunatics (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [FIFTEENTH DAY—Progress, 1st April].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 202—(Law declared by Federal Court and Privy Council to be binding on all courts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.33 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I ventured to put a point of Order to you last night, Mr. Chairman, but you thought it might be more properly dealt with on the question being proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." May I ask you to give your Ruling upon this point, which has arisen out of the arrangements which have been made for the discussion of the Bill? It has been agreed that a number of clauses may be put en bloc if there is no amendment to any clause; but last night there a case where six clauses were to be put, and there was an Amendment to the third of those Clauses. It was an Amendment which you did not select, but it was not an Amendment out of order. If it had been out of order it might be argued that it did not exist at all, but as it was an Amendment that you did not select it came into that category which I think you described as coming within the more questionable area of the selective power of the Chair in respect of amendments. We have always understood that that selective power related to making sure that the particular topic for discussion was taken at the best point which was on the Paper, and by no means related to the shortening of discussion and the excluding of any topics from discussion.
That being so, it would appear that an Amendment which was on the Paper and which you did not choose to select would nevertheless be an Amendment for the purpose of barring the putting of a series of clauses en bloc. I should very much like to know how you have decided upon that matter, and I must of course say that if you have decided that an amendment may be put on the Paper and you may not select it and that then a whole
block of clauses may be put, obviously it would be necessary for those who are watching over the careful and thorough discussion of this important Measure to safeguard themselves from anything going with a run, by putting on the Paper an amendment to omit every Clause in succession from the beginning to the end. I hope that I may receive some Ruling from you on the point.

3.36 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is necessary, in the interests of the Chair and of the Committee, to say that I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman has stated as to the Chairman's power of selection of Amendments. That, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a discretion the exercise of which is a great responsibility, and the purpose of it has not been hedged with any rules or acknowledged usages. The right hon. Gentleman's first point of Order is to some extent mixed up with a second one. At any rate, it deals broadly with the question of taking a number of Clauses en bloc. I have discussed that matter with some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends and others at a meeting of the informal committee to-day. The Resolution of the House is, perhaps, not drawn in very clear detail, but the whole intention of that Resolution and of the arrangement under which we are working was co-operation; and with that end in view, I have come to the conclusion that the proper course for me to take, whenever I propose to take a number of Clauses in a block, is to give hon. Members an opportunity, if they wish to do so, of signifying the fact if on any particular Clause they wish to speak. That no doubt will meet the right hon. Gentleman's view, and I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee. I can only say that, wishing from the point of view of the Chair to assist the business in that way, it will be a convenience if, generally speaking, right hon. and hon. Members will put on the Paper an Amendment to omit any Clause on which they are quite sure that they want to speak. But if there are other Clauses as to which there is no such notice on the Order Paper, I will none the less give hon. Members an opportunity, before putting the whole of the Clauses in a block, to say that they wish to discuss a particular Clause.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I need not say with how much good will and gratitude the minority in this Committee will receive the statement which you have made and which ought to be satisfactory to all.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is "That Clause 202 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I may say so, Sir, you were rather "on the pounce" in rising to put that question. There are very important issues to be raised on this Clause. The Clause involves a point which we raised last night, namely, the question of the amenability of the Princes. It also touches the question of appeals to the Privy Council. These four Clauses numbered 200 to 203 inclusive combine to give us a picture, as it were, of the relations between the Federal and the State Legislatures. On these Clauses we have raised certain definite issues with the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General which have not yet been very clearly or fully determined. This Clause 202 relates to the procedure between the Federal Courts and the Privy Council. It is of considerable consequence, and I think we might have from the Government some explanation of its exact purpose, having regard to the discussion which took place late last night. Perhaps in the light of that discussion the Government could now make a statement which would relieve some of the doubts and anxieties prevailing in certain quarters in the Committee at present.

3.42 p. m

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I am not sure whether this Clause raises or in any way affects the point which my right hon. Friend was discussing last night, but I will do my best shortly to explain what the Clause does. I think the Committee will see that its scope is limited and its effect obvious and desirable. What it says first is that
the law declared by the Federal Court and by any judgment of the Privy Council shall so far as applicable be recognised as binding on and shall he followed by all courts in British India.
That is an obvious and necessary provision, because these are superior courts and their decisions must be followed and
recognised by lower courts. So far as the Indian States are concerned, it provides that any decision of the Federal Court and the Privy Council
so far as respects the application and interpretation of this Act or any Order in Council thereunder or any matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws in relation to the State
—in those cases the decision shall be recognised as binding and followed by the courts of the Federated State. I think that is quite clear. If a question comes before the court of a State as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or in respect of a matter on which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws in that State, the court in the State will follow the decision of what is for this purpose the superior court, namely, the Federal Court or the Privy Council as the case may be. It would be an impossible position if, in matters involving the interpretation of this Act in its application to a State, the Privy Council and the Federal Court were giving one interpretation and the court of the Federated State giving another. That is all the Clause does. It deals, first, with the position as far as British India is concerned, and, secondly, with the position as far as the Federated States are concerned.

3.45 p.m.

M r. CHURCHILL: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his explanation. Of course, the pith and point of this matter is the extent of the intrusion upon the sovereignty of the Federated States which is involved. It now appears, and it would normally appear, that the Federal Court dominates the States which are parties to the union. There is nothing wrong about that so long as it is recognised and properly understood. But, of course, one must note in passing the very serious abrogation of sovereignty involved, and what is required from the federating units for the sake of federal union. Here we come to the important question of judge-made or court-made law, and that process by which there is built up on a substructure of statute law, a whole new superstructure. Here I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will be with me. He, I am sure, remembers the Taff Vale case, and the cases of Quinn against Leather' and Lyons against
Wilkins, and all those successive judgments by which the statute law —so it was contended by the Socialists and Radicals of those days—had been changed, and the real purpose of Parliament had been gradually subverted, and diverted from the direction in which it was launched by the Conservative legislation of Disraeli's Government of 1876, into an entirely different course, very much more favourable to the employers and property owners. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has those matters in his mind.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman wants to give me a headache.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at all. On the contrary, I only want to rouse the right hon. Gentleman to greater activity in the discharge of his constitutional duties.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will not seek to lead the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) into wrong paths of irrelevancy.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure, Sir, you would not seriously think that I should attempt to induce the right hon. Gentleman into any wrong course or into referring to the Taff Vale decision or these other decisions otherwise than as illustrations to emphasise the actual argument now under discussion. The point is this. It ought to be marked that the Federal Court will move forward on its path making interpretations of the law in advance of the legislation—that is to say its interpretations will, until new statutes are passed, govern the actual practice. It is only from time to time that Parliament can pass Acts, but the courts are functioning continuously, and like the coral insects, they build up layer after layer until after a certain point has been reached you observe a new situation. At that point the legislature sometimes intervenes.
The question which we have now in view is what is the position of the Indian States in the Federation in this respect. It is clear that they are amenable to the Federal Court. They are not amenable only to the statute law which is now going through. They are not amenable only to the India Constitutional Bill, or Act as it may some day become—which God for-
fend. Not at all. They are amenable to the continuous law making propositions and decisions which arise from the working of the Federal Court. Of course, we cannot resist this proposition. The Government must bear the consequences, but I think it necessary that the Princes of India and the Prime Ministers of these Federal States should realise that what they are subscribing to—if they should subscribe to it—is not a mere agreement to come into the Federal Constitution embodied in the Statute. There will be a ceaseless, perennial process of judge-made and court-made decisions in the far flung meshes of which they will certainly be enwebbed.

3.50 p. m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): My right hon. Friend is needlessly anxious and seems to think that he has made a great discovery that the sovereignty of the Princes and the Indian States may everywhere be undermined. Let me assure my right hon. Friend that he has made no discovery at all. This Clause has always been accepted by the Indian Princes.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No; surely in the speeches which were made at the Bombay conference, Clause 202 was specifically mentioned as one that would require amendment.

Sir S. HOARE: I can tell my right hon. Friend that there has never been any question at any of the discussions we have ever had with the Princes or their representatives that the Federal Court should not interpret the Clauses of the Constitution Act. They have never expressed anxiety upon that point, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that to the great weight of anxiety which he has placed upon his shoulders in connection with this complicated Bill, he need not add any weight of anxiety about this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 203.—(Power of Governor-General to consult Federal Court.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.52 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We really must have some exposition of these important legal Clauses by a member of the Government. It need not take more than two
or three minutes, but I ask for an exposition as concise and informing as possible. No time is lost by giving a reasonable explanation of what is intended in these Clauses.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): We assume that the right hon. Gentleman, like the rest of the Committee, is able to read what is so plainly stated in the Clause. It deals simply with the power of the Governor-General to refer any question of law, on which he thinks it desirable to obtain the opinion of the Federal Court, to that court for a decision. There is an analogous power in a well-known section of the Privy Council Act.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: The Committee will observe that if a certain condition is fulfilled, the Governor-General may in his discretion refer a question to the Federal Court for consideration. The Clause goes on
and the court may after such hearing as they think fit, report to the Governor-General thereon.
If the condition is fulfilled, should not the court be under an obligation to make a report to the Governor-General? Should not the instruction be mandatory and not merely permissive?

3.54 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend is familiar enough with the forms of legislation to know that in certain circumstances "may" and "shall" are interchangeable expressions. He knows quite well that "may" in this position means "shall," having regard to the consideration that you cannot compel a court to answer a question, although, no doubt, they will regard is as their duty to answer it having regard to the powers that are conferred on them.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: It is clear that any action which the Governor-General takes he takes in his discretion. It is not clear in the condition at the opening of the Clause whether it appears to the Governor-General in his discretion or whether it appears to him as the constitutional head of the executive and therefore on the advice of his ministers.

3.55 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think it matters in what capacity he has his attention called to a, question of law,
whether his ministers draw his attention to the point, or whether it appears to him of his own motion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The point is that, if it appears to him on his own motion, he can act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly.

Mr. BAILEY: Will the opinion of the court be binding in law, or will it be only an opinion? Will it actually have the force of law once the court has given an opinion, and will it be binding upon the Princes?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The binding effect of interpretations of the law by the Federal Court is dealt with by Clause 202.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 204.—(Rules of court, etc.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 115, line 20, after "rules," to insert:
as to the persons practising before the court.
This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the rules which the Federal Court may make with the approval of the Governor-General shall include rules as to the persons practising before the court. Rules will obviously have to be made as to that, and to remove all doubts I am moving this Amendment.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We quite understand that it is a drafting Amendment, but what is the point of particularly defining the application of this Clause to the persons practising before the court? Does the learned Solicitor-General consider that undesirable persons may want to practise, or that seditious persons will utilise the court as a means of exposing the so-called grievances of the locality. What is the point of making rules as to persons practising before the court? Is there to be picking and choosing between persons, although duly qualified in a legal sense? Are people who vote with one party or another, Congress people or others, or people who have fallen within the ban of the law to be excluded? I am not saying that they ought to be included, but we ought to know the purpose of putting these words in. My hon. and
learned Friend has explained what his Amendment does. We can all see that. It enables the authorities to make rules about people who may appear before them. Ought not these rules, if any, to be merely rules governed, on the one hand, by the ordinary common law, and, on the other hand, by any special arrangement which may govern the procedure of the legal bodies which exist in India similar to those that exist at home?

3.59 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend's question is capable of a very short answer. Every court must have power to make rules as to who shall have the right of audience, whether a fully qualified barrister or a solicitor, and what barristers shall have that right, for in India there are different bars in every Province. Rules will clearly have to be made, therefore, as to who shall have the right of audience. There is no question of distinguishing between individuals. It might be said that a power of controlling the right of audience is so inherent in the court that these words are unnecessary. The Clause, however, contains the words
for regulating generally the practice and procedure
and it specifies certain matters as to which there must be rules. It is desirable, therefore, that this matter, as to which there must be rules, should also be specifically referred to.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It seems to me to be giving very wide powers. I hope that it will not in any way take away the independence of the Bar, because we at home have our own rules which keep up the general standard of professional conduct. This looks as if the judiciary might step in and interfere with the independence of the Bar in India. The Clause seems to be capable of interpretation so that the Federal Court might in some way or other take away from the independence of the profession, which is one of the main guardians of public liberty.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I wonder if I might ask for an assurance from whoever is going to reply that it is not the intention to make these rules too
stringent, so as to ensure that there is not an abuse, but that they will be kept fairly wide, and reasonable protection will be given to the public to get sufficient lawyers.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will certainly give that assurance. There is no intention to have any abuse of that kind. With regard to what my hon. and learned Friend said, it is not, of course, the Bar who make rules in this country, but the Courts, and that provision is covered by this Amendment giving this power to the court.

4. 2 p. m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The learned Solicitor-General described this Amendment as purely a drafting Amendment. I do not think that that is quite a comprehensive statement of the scope of the Amendment, which, obviously, is one of substance. But let that be. Let us examine it purely from the point of view of a drafting Amendment overlooked until this moment. It is not correctly drafted. If the learned Solicitor-General will direct his gaze upon the earth, he will see that the Amendment which he is taking the responsibility of commending to the Committee will not even read. You must insert the word "and" after this Amendment to make it read. [HON. MEMBERS: "A comma."] The Clause will read:
the Governor-Genera] in his discretion, make rules of court for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the court, including rules as to the persons practising before the court.

HON. MEMBERS: Comma.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg pardon—yes, a comma. But where is your comma? It is all very well, but I remember the Leader of the Opposition raising a long Debate and getting the Government into an awful hole about a comma. Let us not be contemptuous of commas.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I point out that the Amendment has a full stop, which is more than a comma?

Amendment agreed to.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 115, line 26, after "vexatious," to insert "or of a champertous nature."
I do not want to be dogmatic, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that the word "champertous" means, in popular language, dividing the proceeds of the litigation. It has been, I believe, for many hundreds of years a criminal offence in this country to make a champertous agreement, and I am given to understand it is a very common sort of agreement, that people will undertake litigation in consideration of dividing the swag as a result of the litigation. As the Sub-section is now drawn the rules allow the court of appeal to deal summarily with frivolous or vexatious appeals, but a champertous appeal might certainly not be frivolous or vexatious. It might be a perfectly genuine appeal, that would not ordinarily be put in, by one of the parties being encouraged to appeal by having been induced to make a champertous agreement.

4.7 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The law of champerty, to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, is, I am told, unknown to the law of India and indeed, I think, it is unknown to any legal system but our own.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In America it is the common way in which you undertake. litigation

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would, therefore, be quite wrong to put into an Act applying to India a branch of law which does not exist in the Indian legal system. In so far as the kind of transaction to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred results in an appeal being frivolous or vexatious, the court can deal with that under the law as it stands, and it would be a pity to pick out one element not frivolous or vexatious and specify it, instead of leaving the court, with the wide discretion it has in these words, to deal summarily with an appeal which is frivolous or vexatious, and which ought to be summarily dealt with.

4.8 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The difficulty of the argument of the learned Solicitor-General is that in some of the districts in India this method of dealing with disputes is not considered to be frivolous or vexatious. I have it on very high authority that it is by no means
uncommon when a case has been tried for the plaintiff to put an envelope on one side of the judge, and a defendant to put an envelope on the other side of the judge, and for the judge to count the number of rupees—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is champerty.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I am very much disappointed by what the learned Solicitor-General has said. It may, indeed, be that champerty is unknown to the law of India, but surely the learned Solicitor-General might consider translating the word into language which could be understood. Does "vexatious" cover champerty? I do not think it does. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that champerty means making an appeal in order to divide the swag. That is not frivolous. It may be that the appeal is not frivolous, and it certainly is not vexatious to those lawyers who are going to be employed on the appeal, but if you insert "champerty" or some such word, it does lay down that that type of thing will not be allowed, and so the question of whether it is vexatious or frivolous will not come in. It will be illegal. As we have heard, there is a great deal of that type of financial action at the present time. If the Government do not like that word, at any rate let them give us something that means champerty.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If this is the practice in India, and I believe it will be the practice there, because Indians are particularly fond of litigation, there will be champerty no matter what you do. As the learned Solicitor-General has pointed out, the illegality of champerty is a peculiarly English rule of law. We have something similar in Scotland where we call a man who finances and takes charge of litigation to which he does not belong and has no real interest in the dominus litis, or the master of litigation, and if the case is lost, he is liable to the expenses if the principal does not pay up. If the case is won, what does it matter to the man who has lost whether there was champerty or not? He was in the wrong and was found to be in the wrong and that is all there is to it. There may be a bad judgment against him, and somebody else comes along and takes it
up as an ordinary speculation saying, "I will finance the thing so far, and 1 will share the plunder," or the profits, or whatever it may be. What harm has been done? That is universal in the United States of America. It is the way lawyers work there. They come to a client and say," Look here, I think you have a very good case." The client says, "I will not spend any money upon it." The lawyer then says, "The case is so good that I will chance my hand, and take 10, 20 or 50 per cent." The client gets justice—if you can get justice in the United States. The Indians do the same and see nothing wrong in this.
Champerty is an English rule. It is the strong, successful and prosperous people who can pay their expenses if they lose who do not like to see a fellow pursuing a case further than he has the money to pay for, on the off-chance, and so this law of champerty was invoked to keep the man of little or no account from getting much benefit out of the law. He was not, at any rate, going to be allowed to appeal. That is the very opposite of the law of-Scotland, because long ago we expressly provided that poor people should get the benefit of the law courts free of charge, and if they won their cases they could then get their costs against the other side. Since 1425, members of our Bar have been conscripted to conduct these cases for poor people, and get nothing for it unless successful. Great American jurists have described the Scottish as the only people who have found the ideal system, for in all parts of America, unless you can find money to get civil justice, they cannot get it, whereas in Scotland they can. Therefore, we should be very careful about putting in a word like this, because we are dealing with a vast race of people with different ideals from our own. Why then should we put in our stiff-necked English legalities, and impose them upon these Orientals? That, of course, is the fault of the whole Bill. The English, with their incredible vanity, will insist on foisting their institutions on Orientals who have wholly different ideas.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not discuss the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and learned Friend has made a very fertile contribution to our discussion, but as he reached the closing period of his remarks I found that he was arriving at a different conclusion from my own. I am in favour of "champertous" being inserted in the Bill. The decision before the Committee is whether they will inflict upon India the Scottish or the English conception of the law in this particular. I must proclaim myself a partisan of the English conception. Champertous actions are banned with the idea of preventing litigation being fomented—although it may sometimes help some small person—by interested parties who are to be paid their fees out of the proceeds of the judgment if it should go in their favour. English opinion has always been opposed to champerty and, after all, England does still exist, although its nationality is submerged. For many generations that has been one of the essential propositions of our jurisprudence.
Why should we not extend this benefit to India? Why should we not give them the whole of our message? "Champertous" is certainly part of the British message. Why should it not be included in this India Bill? Is there any portion of the earth in which it is more necessary that a prohibition against champertous transactions should exist than in India? China is a vast Asiatic country, but in China there is anarchy. Russia also is Asiatic; and there may be other parts of Asia which are under various forms of tyranny. But in India we have at present peace and order and legality, and we have this vice of Asiatic races, which the English themselves, inventing this word "champertous," have discovered is a matter to be corrected, and therefore why should we not confer this prohibition against champerty upon India together with all the other benefits which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) wishes to bestow.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that in India there is a condition of law and order. They have no prohibition of champerty at present, and why should he desire to change the position?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a condition of law and order because the judiciary
of that country is influenced and dominated at the present time by English traditions, and inherent among those English traditions is this hatred of champerty; but now we are reaching to a new regime, another dispensation. Gradually English control of the judiciary will fade, and in consequence it is all the more necessary to bequeath to them our full inheritance while we are about it. I should have thought the hon. Member for Bodmin would have been the very first to have supported this proposal. He is surely not going to confer upon India all the blessings of modern democracy and deny them this English provision against champerty. Let them have the whole dose. It is a terribly dangerous thing to give a very strong and severe medicine to a whole nation and yet to leave out some essential element in the prescription I appeal to the Government to prohibit champerty in India just as they have put down dacoity, suttee and other vicious practices.
Why should the Government not accept this Amendment? What harm does it do? It is sound of itself. It will be beneficial to India. It would make no difference to the Bill, only the Government have got into such a habit of refusing everything and of thinking that all they have to do is to ring the bell and bring in the crowd that they will not even address themselves to a proposition seriously put forward upon careful and reflecting legal authority? Why cannot the Government accept this Amendment? I do not suppose they will, having said that they will not. If they had said they would it would have been in the Bill. Now that they are cutting the painter, now that India is drifting apart, surely they might leave India with this principle of the law. I think I see that the Attorney-General is moved. He and his learned brother are consulting together. May I hope that some consideration will be given to this point? If not, I really think the House has a right to feel ill-used, not because the Government are not courteous and polite, but because they pay no attention whatever to anything that is said. No reason whatever has been given to us. What is this statement that the language is not the same? If they put the word "champerty" into Tamil or Hindustani or any other dialect the people would not understand it, it is said. What nonsense! They will gulp
down the word "champerty." If the Government imagine they will not understand what "champerty" means they are under a delusion. It is a real link of Empire between ourselves and them. If the Government insert the word "champerty" they will not need to translate it. They have only to tell the Indian people what it means in simple terms, and the Indian people will see the immense significance of it, and all over that vast sub-Continent there will be appreciative thanks.

4.23 p.m.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: With all respect it seems to me that both my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) have misread the Clause. The Clause and the Amendment do not deal with the question of whether we shall or shall not prevent champerty in the future, but with a much narrower point, and that is whether we shall allow the Federal Court, if it so wishes, to make rules against champerty. We are leaving it to the discretion of the Federal Court. If this Amendment is rejected, the Federal Court will have no power to make rules against champerty. We in this country found, many hundreds of years ago, that it was highly desirable to make rules against champerty, and I confess to a certain feeling of astonishment when I heard the learned Solicitor-General say that because the rules against champerty in our own system of law were unique, therefore they should not be applied to India. My belief has always been that our legal system was the envy and admiration of the world, and I was astounded when I heard him say that anything which was unique in our legal system should obviously be avoided. But, as I say, we are not dealing with the question of whether champerty is desirable or not desirable, but with the simple issue of whether or not it is desirable to allow the Federal Court to make rules against champerty if it so wishes. Champerty may or may not be a very desirable thing. In spite of the law against it I have had some considerable experience of it myself, and have been the victim, so I am thoroughly convinced, of a champertous action. I am sorry if I say anything which will upset my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll-
shire (Mr. Macquisten), but agreements are entered into by which a lawyer undertakes to fight an action—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The lawyer in Scotland is not entitled to make a bargain for a. share of the proceeds of a litigation. The pactum de quota litis is illegal. But a stranger may do so, which is champerty in England.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the law of Scotland.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: There have been cases in which a champertous action was brought by an unscrupulous lawyer in the hope of gaining a rich reward; but if the action is unsuccessful he tries in vain to secure his costs, because champerty does not extend to dividing the loss if a loss ensues. I have myself been a victim of a case of that kind. It was hoped to derive some benefit from the action, but the benefit was not there, because I won the day, and costs were not forthcoming. In my view that kind of litigation is undoubtedly undesirable. It may be that our legal system is unique in making it illegal, but it seems desirable that the Federal Court should at any rate have the power to make rules.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Noble Lord that even he is making the issue too wide. The Amendment only deals with the making of rules for the summary determination of any appeal. It is not a case of making rules against champerty at all.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I think, with all respect, that this Amendment applies to the rules which the court has power to make, and not to any general enactment against champerty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: ; But the whole issue is raised on the question of whether the Federal Court shall make rules against champertous transactions.

The CHAIRMAN: I think, with all respect, that view is wrong, and that many of the speeches on this Amendment have been made, apparently, before hon. Members had read the Clause with sufficient care to understand what would be the effect of amending it as proposed. The matter is perfectly clear. If the Amendment were inserted, there would.
be power to make rules for providing for the summary determination of any op-peals which appear to have been of a vexatious or of a champertous nature, or brought for the purpose of delay.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I have had some small experience of litigation between Asiatic subjects, and particularly British-India subjects, and I would assure the learned Solicitor-General that this Amendment is an attempt to stop a practice which is extremely undesirable. It gives a court power summarily to determine an appeal in which the lawyer and his client may have made an agreement that the lawyer should reimburse himself out of the proceeds of the action, and I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that that is an extremely common practice with Indian lawyers. There were very few cases indeed in our East African dependencies in which such bargains were not made, and the effect of them is undoubtedly to cause longer and more tedious litigation.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the time has now come to say that we cannot continue this Debate on the impropriety or the wickedness of champerty.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, but might we hear from the Government some reasons why, in this matter of making rules, together with the words "frivolous or vexatious" we should not also insert the word "champertous" The only reason we have heard from the Government is that the word "champerty" is not familiar in India, but the practice is all too familiar there, and, if we are conferring upon India our British system of democratic government, we ought not to deny them this extremely valuable element in our system. We have had no answer from the Government, and the Debate has been prolonged because the answer given by the Solicitor-General was so utterly inadequate. He merely said that there was not a native word for "champerty," or something like that. It is because they have not given us any reason for not adopting these words or have not accepted the Amendment which would have been a reasonable course which almost any other Government wishing to associate the House of Commons with their legislation would have
adopted, that this discussion has been, perhaps, protracted beyond the particular point. The responsibility rests with the Government. Let the Solicitor-General give some reason other than the difficulty of translating the word "champerty" into the Indian language, or let the Government accept the Amendment. We can then immediately proceed to the next Clause upon which further important points arise.

4.32 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said that I did not anticipate in my answer a question which does not and could not possibly arise, either on the Amendment or on the Clause which we are discussing. The whole of this Debate has proceeded upon the question whether or not the subject of champerty should be introduced into the Indian Code. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think I am within the recollection of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought tint this was a desirable ingredient, and he proceeded to tell us its advantages. The Clause merely deals with cases in which the Federal Court may make rules for the summary determination of appeals. You would not get any champertous proceedings there. In answer to what the Noble Lord said, if it is desirable to deal with champerty, the rules of court would be quite the wrong place to do so. The Clause deals with one very simple matter, which is to make rules by which the Federal Court can deal summarily with appeals which are considered frivolous or vexatious.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In. what way are "frivolous" or "vexatious" separated, in the category which the Solicitor-General is now examining, from "champertous"?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are separated. If the proceedings before the court are frivolous or vexatious, the court is entitled to deal with them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Why not champertous?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: A champertous case may be of the utmost importance, and it would be highly derivable that the court should deal with
it and decide it at length. The question whether there should or should not be a Clause against champerty is entirely outside the scope of the Clause with which we are dealing. I press upon the Committee to realise that the Clause with which we are dealing here is whether there should be power to deal summarily before the court with appeals which are frivolous or vexatious. When I spoke originally, I based my arguments on the fact that it would be wrong to accept the Amendment, because it would be inappropriate to attempt to introduce a new element which is not an offence in Indian law. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision.

Amendment negatived.

4.37 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 115, line 28, after "may," to insert:
and if the Federal Legislature make such provision as is mentioned in this chapter for enlarging the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court shall.
This Amendment, and the next—in page 115, line 33, to leave out "shall compose that division," and to insert. "are to sit for any purpose,"—make two small alterations relating to the question as to whether the Federal Court shall, in certain instances, sit in two divisions. The Committee will remember that there is power in Clause 196 for the Federal Legislature to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court by allowing the appeals to go there in other than what we may call constitutional cases. This Clause, as at present drafted, provides that rules may be made for the court to sit in two divisions, and the first of the Amendments provides that, if the power in Clause 196 is exercised, there shall be two divisions. That will ensure that there will be a division free to deal with constitutional matters and another division free to deal with matters which will come to the court under Clause 196. The first Amendment makes it imperative that there shall be two divisions in the event of the powers under Clause 196 being exercised, and the second is a drafting Amendment, so that the Clause shall read:
fix the minimum number of judges who are to sit for any purpose

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is that merely consequential?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

4.39 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hope the Government will not press this Amendment and will reconsider the wording of the Clause. The point is raised in the report of the Joint Select Committee and the Clause does not correspond—nor does the Amendment—with the recommendation of that Select Committee. The Federal Court will start with a bench of not more than six judges, charged with the duty, broadly speaking, of dealing with constitutional cases. In so far as their function is to deal with cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution, it is of the utmost importance that all such cases should be dealt with before the full court. It is the universal experience of every country with a fixed constitution, especially of every federal country, that you must have one and the same tribunal dealing with constitutional cases. The principle is accepted, for instance, by every constitutional lawyer in the United States that the Constitution of the United States would become completely unworkable if the inter-State commerce clause had been interpreted now by one division of the supreme court and now by another division. It is agreed to be essential that all such questions should be heard before the full court, as the Federal court will first be constituted.
The Clause gives the Chief Justice power to divide the Federal Court, even while it is concerned only with constitutional cases. Under the Government Amendment, the Chief Justice will have power to divide the court, with the approval, of course, of the Governor-General, and then arises the second point. Suppose that the new powers of the court of appeal should go to the Federal Court and the Federal Court were enlarged. It is unlikely that it would be enlarged to more than nine members, which is the size of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no reason why they should not sit as a full court. I agree that it might be perfectly proper to divide the court so that there should be a supreme court division dealing with appeals and a federal division dealing with constitutional cases. There are arguments in favour of that, but this Amendment, while obliging the court to sit in two divisions, which has never been
recommended, so far as I know, by anyone as a mandatory necessity, does not prescribe that the two divisions shall consist of a Federal Court and of a Supreme Court, and that one division shall deal with constitutional cases and one division shall deal with appeals. Under the Amendment, it would become mandatory upon the chief justice to make these rules, and it would be perfectly open to him to make a rule saying that constitutional cases involving certain points should go to one division and that constitutional cases involving certain other points should go to the other division, in other words, the Amendment makes what I regard as the mistake of the present Government worse confounded. I press upon the Government to think again and before the Report stage to consider how we can ensure in the drafting of the Clause, which is the only thing which is important, that all constitutional cases shall be dealt with by the full court, as the full court is originally set up under the Bill, namely, the original Federal Court of not more than six judges.

4.44 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I appreciate, and indeed I agree with, a great deal of what my Noble Friend said, although I think he put the case a little more rigidly than I should be inclined to put it. It is obviously desirable that the court, that decides constitutional issues, should have a substantial continuity of personality, the chief justice always presiding and the bulk of the other judges being the same. I am not sure that I go quite to the extent that he does, when he suggests that it is undesirable to have any latitude within which say a judge who, when Clause 196 operates has been doing other work, might come on to the constitutional panel. You might, for instance, having extended your court, and having set up, as my Noble Friend would, a separate division to deal with the other appellate work, find in your second division, if I may so call it, a man, or two men, obviously of outstanding ability, who would be useful in the constitutional section. Obviously that might happen, just as to-day you might have in your Court of Appeal in England the kind of mind which would be extremely useful on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But we
think it might be undesirable to introduce too rigid a provision.
There is another aspect of the matter. We believe that the considerations which my Noble Friend has urged would be as present to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court as to my Noble Friend or to anybody else. He will be as alive to the vital importance of continuity of personnel in dealing with these constitutional matters as anyone could be. He will be the person responsible for the general working and prestige of the Federal Court, and all those matters to which my Noble Friend referred will obviously influence him in the rules which he makes and in the manner in which he arranges for the judges who will be associated with him in the Federal Courts. We do not, therefore, want to tie him up too much, nor do we think there is any real danger in allowing him a useful latitude within which to work, but we are at one with my Noble Friend on what I may call the main lines of the condition which he has made.
While believing that the Federal Court will work best if those lines are followed, we would ask the Committee to accept this Amendment, which I think will take its place in my Noble Friend's scheme, in that if you do not provide for two divisions, assuming that the powers of Clause 196 are exercised, you will have one or other of these results—either the ordinary non-constitutional appeals will have to go to the whole bench or you will never be able to hear a constitutional case while an appellate case is being heard. That surely would be undesirable. My Noble Friend says, what is quite right, that this Clause does not say in terms that one of the two divisions will try constitutional cases and one of the two divisions will try appellate cases. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I will certainly say that we will consider again the point which my Noble Friend has raised and see whether, without making the machine too rigid, and by placing a reasonable confidence in the Chief Justice to arrange work in the best possible way, we can put in words which will go some way in the Bill to safeguard the results which both my Noble Friend and the Government have at heart.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Supposing the Court was divided into two divisions, would there still be anything to prevent
the Chief Justice in any particular case directing that it should be heard by a full bench?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Nothing whatever.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I venture to ask whether my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is satisfied with the answer he has received? After all, my Noble Friend sat on the Joint Select Committee, whose report on this subject, I gather, differs from the action of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] He said so, at any rate, but you must fight that out among yourselves. We are not usually associated with the Noble Lord, who is a most vehement supporter of the Government in these matters, but now he differs from the Government.
There is a length to which, I trow, Colonial bishops cannot go.
I did not mean to refer to his pontifical qualities; but the Noble Lord has now pulled up. He has gone thus far with the Government, but he has now entered a serious caveat. I could not gather whether his objections were to the Amendment or to the whole Clause. I rather think he objected to both. He asked the Government to withdraw its Clause or to remodel it, and the point he raised was one of substance. He pointed out what confusion worse confounded would have resulted in the United States if there had been two Supreme Courts which might have given divergent rulings on, for instance, the gold dollar question. This is part of the amazing policy that you are constructing for India. There are to be two supreme courts, or the supreme court is to divide itself into two tribunals, which may give opposite opinions, but all is to be entrusted to the good sense of the chief justice, who will naturally' divide the business as he may choose.
I must say that my part in this matter will be determined by the Noble Lord. He has raised the issue; he has opposed the Government and taken the responsibility—I admit he has the Joint Select Committee at his back—of confronting the National Government with a very definite point of divergence. He has been given an answer which, as anyone who has listened to it will agree, is no answer at all. He has been fobbed off with. This
vague and airy assurance, which I must say the learned Solicitor-General does in a most skilful manner, that "perhaps at some future time, before the Report stage, we will bear the matter in mind and see if some words cannot be inserted which will perhaps go a little nearer to meeting the point of view advanced by my Noble Friend," etcetera, and so on. Is be satisfied with that? Will he accept the rebuff which he has received? I think it is a rebuff. The mocking cheers of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) do not at all alter my view that it is a rebuff. When a Member who has followed all the process of the Government for two or three years with the faithfulness of a hound for his master, and who suddenly asks for a bone, has something flung to him, however small—and he has a legitimate and substantial point—and is told by the learned Solicitor-General to go off and eat his own tail, I must say that I think that constitutes all the elements of a parliamentary rebuff. At any rate, I shall hold my judgment in suspense as to what I do on this Amendment until I have heard further from my Noble Friend.

4.55 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I was about to give expression to my attitude when my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) thought it necessary to get up and to give me a pat on the back; or was it to give me a little courage? If that was the object, I confess he has not succeeded. If any hon. Member of this House raises a point of argument of some specific importance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping is sure to drown any meaning there may be in the point by a sea of oratorical soapsuds, so that no one any longer knows what the discussion is about.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Just repeat it, will you?

Lord E. PERCY: Let me at least thank my right hon. Friend for one thing. It is a high privilege to receive a lecture on proper political behaviour and on the principles of political consistency from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You are welcome.

Lord E. PERCY: I have one complaint to make against my hon. and learned
Friend the Solicitor-General. He used the expression, which is too commonly used in these Debates, "that, of course, the Amendment does not say in terms that" so and so. Well, you cannot say anything except in terms. If you do not say it in terms, you do not say it at all, and the real trouble is that my hon. and learned Friend does say in terms something which he says he does not want to say, for he says that these rules
may specify the division in which in cases of any specified class the jurisdiction of the court is to be exercised.
"Any specified class" in terms gives to the chief justice liberty to divide the court at any point that he may wish, and clearly, if there is one obvious principle of construction of a piece of legislation, it is that if you go out of your way to specify, in the first place, that he must do a certain thing when a certain contingency arises, and then go out of your way to say that what he then shall do need bear no necessary relation to the contingency out of which his action has arisen, you obviously give him the strongest reason for supposing that he may divide the court, not at the point between constitutional and supreme court cases, but at any point which he thinks fit.
I quite agree with the learned Solicitor-General. Nobody is asking for an impossible continuity of personnel in your Federal Court. Judges die, and judges are appointed, and, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States today is not the Supreme Court, of 10 years ago. In the same way, I agree, it might be very desirable to appoint an additional judge of the Federal Court by transferring him from the Supreme Court. It would be no different from taking a judge and appointing him from outside. I am not asking for any impossible continuity of personnel of that kind. I am asking that there shall be a division of the court, and that that division shall be identified with the hearing of constitutional cases; and, unless that Amendment is made, the Amendment which we are now discussing is worse than useless. I am not going to argue as to whether this Amendment should be accepted now and the thing reconsidered on Report, or whether the Amendment should be withdrawn now and the whole thing reconsidered on Report. It is not worth while wasting time by arguing that, but I would like an
assurance that the whole question, from the point of view which I have stated, will be reconsidered by the Government before Report.

4.59 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: We were under the impression that the Amendment was making more clear the intention of the Joint Select Committee. That intention undoubtedly was that there should be a division between constitutional and appellate cases, and it was to make that clear that we proposed this Amendment. My noble Friend is not satisfied with the wording of the Amendment, and I suggest that probably it will be most convenient if we pass the Amendment now, and I give him an undertaking that we will look into the question further, keeping in mind the fact that he and I are agreed that the division should be between constitutional and appellate cases.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think this matter ought to be settled in this fashion. Here is the Secretary of State doing a private deal with the Noble Lord, keeping in mind, as he said, the fact that they were agreed. After all, we are dealing with the Committee of the House of Commons, and I do not think that these transactions should be of such an extremely selective character as all that. I quite understand that a Member who presses a point with a great deal of knowledge, as the Noble Lord did, has the right to an answer specially by the Secretary of State. But I should have thought that when the Secretary of State intervened at the end of the discussion on this particular point he would have given his pledge to the Committee rather than make it one of these many compliments which he extends to those who have supported his fortunes so long.

5.2 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was proposing when my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), to rise in support of the point made by my noble Friend. I am as satisfied as he is with the assurance which the Secretary of State has given, but I must admit that I was not satisfied with the arguments which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General used. I am not very much impressed by his plea against too much rigidity. I think this is a matter in which a certain amount of
rigidity is desirable; and that the dangers of leaving the matter open to the discretion of the chief justice are much greater than the losses that would follow from the fact that at some particular time a particular judge was not available in the Federal Court to try a constitutional issue. I only wish, therefore, to urge upon the Government that their consideration of this matter should be a really frank and candid consideration of the case put by the Noble Lord and that it should lead to a real desire to meet us. I hope my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will not be deterred by the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. We must remember that he is very much in the position described by one of the characters in "Alice through the Looking Glass":
The fact is,' said the Red Queen, 'she wants to deny something and she doesn't know what to deny.' A nasty, vicious temper, I call it,' said the Red Queen.

5.4 p.m.

Major HILLS: Would not the real solution be to make all constitutional appeals go as a matter of course to the full Federal Court of six judges? These will be the most important appeals. There will not be many of them, and it is quite reasonable that the full court should share these decisions. For the ordinary appellate jurisdiction of the court, split up your court into two or even three divisions if you like. Those appeals will be by far the most numerous and they could be very well taken by a smaller court than the full court. If you split the court up into two divisions and apportion one to the constitutional appeals, I think you lose something in a smaller court. The Supreme Court of America is certainly much larger than three judges. I think you may have a difference of personnel which would affect a smaller body more than it would affect a bigger body. For those reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he could not in the amended Clause consent to constitutional appeals going to the full court of six judges, making two divisions for the purpose of dealing with the ordinary appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is not that possible? Here is a practical suggestion. I am most anxious to preserve the accord
for the time being between representatives of the Joint Select Committee and the Secretary of State, and here it seems to me that my right hon. and gallant Friend has come forward with a perfectly practicable—and as it seems to me prima facie; I do not commit myself—a thoroughly reasonable and sensible proposal. What is the answer to that? After all, the Government may be prepared to deal with those who oppose the Bill with all the roughness and rigour of Parliamentary power, but here are their faithful supporters,! Here are men with deep anxieties, though with them in the general purpose of handing over the sovereignty of India. Surely the Government will answer their own supporters. What is the answer to what they have said,? Here are three Privy Councillors who have spoken against the Government case. They are three supporters of the Government who are all members of the Privy Council—and senior members, long established. Two out of the three have sat all through the discussions of the Joint Select Committee. They have put their proposal. What is the answer of the Government? Will they accept the proposal made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, or will they give a specific assurance that on the Report stage a definite statement will be made on this point with a view to trying to give satisfaction? After all you are giving away our Indian Empire, and you may as well be agreed one with another about the proposals. At least be solid. Do not be breaking up at this stage; otherwise, one cannot tell how far the rot will spread. What is the answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who seems to have contributed a point of substance and one helpful to the House? It is a point on which the Government might at any rate tell us whether this would be the kind of thing they would be likely to favour and embody in the Bill when we get to the Report stage.

The CHAIRMAN  rose—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to have no answer?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot compel Ministers to speak. I to put the Question, and I must put it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 115, line 33, leave out "shall compose that division" and insert "are to sit for any purpose." — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 205.—(Powers of Federal Legislature.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.11 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to know if we can be told by some member of the Government what sort of powers are referred to in this Clause. The Clause envisages that the Federal Legislature might supplement the powers of the Federal Court. Perhaps the Secretary of State can give us an idea of the powers which will be covered by this Clause before we pass from it.

5.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a Clause put in purely out of precaution, in case it should turn out that in some very important and vital matter some supplemental power is necessary for the purpose of enabling the court more effectively to exercise its jurisdiction. Where you are dealing with such important matters as this, it is thought wise to put in an enabling Clause to enable the Legislature, should the need arise, to fill up the gap. The Committee will see that the powers under the Clause are definitely limited and restricted. The powers are to be such as may appear necessary to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by or under this Act. Necessarily, there is no specific point in mind or the Clause would have been made specific. The Legislature will have the power, should it be required, to confer upon the court the powers necessary to enable it to perform the functions placed upon it under the Bill.

5.13 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is the real purpose of this Clause to avoid the necessity of passing amending legislation in this House in the event of supplemental powers being required by the Federal Court? I would point out that it is rather a curious method of procedure that we should go into the most minute details in setting up a Federal Court in this Bill which will become an Act of Parliament,
and then say that another Legislature, the Federal Legislature, should in fact be empowered to enlarge the powers of the court in any way necessary so long as the supplemental powers are not inconsistent with what has been passed by this House. We shall have this position, that the Federal Court will have powers enacted by legislation passed by two different bodies—the Houses of Parliament here and the Federal Legislature which is to be set up in India. I do not know whether this is going to be the rule in other matters, but it seems to be a rather curious rule to set up as a new precedent. The rule always has been that a law passed by this House could not be amended by any other Legislature.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Would this make it possible for the Federal Legislature to take away any appellate powers from a High Court and place these in the hands of the Federal Court?

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Expenses of Federal Court.)

5.15 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 116, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (2).
At first sight this Clause seems to be of a somewhat harmless and, I was almost going to say, meaningless character, and one of my objects in moving this Amendment is to obtain some elucidation of the exact meaning of the Clause. I am bound to say, however, that a certain amount of reflection has left one not quite so certain as to whether Sub-section (2) is as harmless or meaningless as it looks. One would like to know definitely why it should be necessary for the sanction of the Governor-General to be given to the expenses of the Federal Court being put in an estimate. Surely it should be self-evident that the expenses of a Federal Court should be allowed without question in any circumstances, and the question whether such expenses are to be allowed or not should not depend upon the individual judgment of the Governor-General. It seems to me that this Clause is going to introduce into the relations between the Federal Court and the Executive in India just that element which we have tried to keep out of the relations between the judiciary and the Government in this
country. It is most undesirable that the members of the Federal Court should feel that they are dependent for their salaries in any way upon the good will of the Executive, or at any rate that the administrative expenses of the Court, or the finances of the Court, should be dependent upon the good will of the Executive. It seems to me that under Sub-section (2) of Clause 206 such a position might very easily arise, because the phrase is used:
The Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment.
At an earlier stage we were told that that meant that he would in practice consult with his ministers before acting, and, in the view of those of us who are opposing the Bill, it is most undesirable that the Governor-General should consult with his ministers before allowing the expenses of the Federal Court.

5.19 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem, if I may say so, to have read the Clause sufficiently carefully. The whole of his speech appears to me to have been made under a, misapprehension, and to be irrelevant. The first part of the Clause deals with payment of salaries, but, in the case of the Subsection with which he is dealing, it is only a question of including certain salaries and expenses in an estimate. It has nothing whatever to do with the Governor-General having power to decide what the salaries are to be, or to reduce them.

5.20 p. m

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think it is easier to understand the import of Subsection (2) if one has read Record 3 presented to the Joint Select Committee, or that chapter in Record 3 which explains that the Government propose that, whereas at present the administrative expenses of the High Court are entirely votable by the Legislature, in future the Governor should have the power to certify what are the necessary administrative expenses of the Court. Clause 217 of the Bill appears to me to carry out that intention. Clause 206 appears to me to be modelled on Clause 217 with respect to the Federal Court and the Governor-General, and therefore Sub-section (2) raises a rather important point. Sub-section (1), if it stood alone, would mean, I gather, that
the whole of what the Court asks for as administrative expenses would be charged upon the revenues of the Federation; but Sub-section (2) requires that the Governor-General shall be satisfied that the administrative expenses asked for are reasonable, and therefore throws upon him the responsibility of fixing the sum which is to be charged on the revenues of the Federation.

5.22 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: It is noticeable that Sub-section (2) says that the Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment; and therefore, presumably, if the amount asked for appeared to him to be in excess of the amount that should be expended, he could reduce it. Does not that mean that in other cases the Governor-General cannot in his individual judgment reduce expenses? If that be not so, it seems rather dangerous to specify this particular matter of the expenses of carrying on the duties of the Federal Court as one in which the Governor-General can intervene and reduce the sum that can be asked for from the Legislature.

5.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think there is a little misunderstanding as to what the procedure is. The Noble Lady rather suggested, but I think on consideration she will agree that it would not be possible, that in connection with all administrative expenses the court should finally decide what the figure should be. Suppose, for instance, that a question arises as to the upkeep of buildings, or an enlargement or reconstruction in one particular year or another. Part of the object of this Sub-section is to ensure that, if that is a proper and necessary thing to do, there shall be no question about its being done. But you could not put on the judiciary the executive responsibility of deciding whether, say, rebuilding should be done in any particular period. The necessary procedure is, that the High Court knowing what they require—and in passing I may mention that this, of course, does not deal with the salaries of the judges—for the salaries of their staff and for necessary expenses in connection with the upkeep or reconstruction of buildings, the construction of new buildings, and so on, the responsibility for expenditure of that
kind must be on the Executive. Otherwise you would have the judges being criticised for spending public money and so on. An executive minister must be responsible. The object of the Sub-section is to safeguard the demand, in this case of the Federal Court, and similar provision is made for the corresponding case of the High Court, for all proper and reasonable expenditure, and to prevent ministers from seeking to cut down such expenditure and starve the Court of money which it needs for its purposes; so that should it unfortunately happen, which we do not anticipate, that ministers suggest that expenditure which the Governor-General has said was reasonable is excessive, it will be the Governor-General who has the last word as to what figure shall be put in the estimate when the matter comes into the Budget.

5.26 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend that, as I understand it, the expenses of the courts in England are borne on the Consolidated Fund, and I do not think—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not say that. The expenditure for upkeep and so on is votable. It is the salaries of the judges that are borne on the Consolidated Fund.

Duchess of ATHOLL: But is there not a distinction between the cost of building, say, new Law Courts, which, as the Solicitor-General rightly says, would have to be voted by Parliament, and the salaries and so on of the servants of the court—the staff of the court? I would like, before we part from this Clause, to tell the Committee that the High Courts in India have been faced with very real difficulties in more Provinces than one because their administrative expenses have had to be voted by the Legislative Council, and memorials on that subject were presented by several High Courts to the Simon Commission, in which they spoke of the criticism to which they had been subjected and the extent to which their independence was threatened in consequence. The High Court at Bombay, in particular, expressed anxiety about being subject to the Government of Bombay as regards their administrative expenses. We recognise, of course, that it is much better if the Governor-General—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady will realise, in the first place, that this Clause does not relate to the High Courts, and, secondly, that the very Clause to which this Amendment is related deals with that point in the first paragraph, to which I have already called attention. The salaries are, under that first paragraph, to be charged on the revenues of the Federation.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am well aware that the judges of the Federal Court and of the High Courts—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady mentions salaries, and I did so too, but I was not speaking of the salaries of the judges, which are not in question here, but the salaries of the servants of the court.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was only using the High Court as an illustration. No Federal Court has yet been established, and, therefore, it is not possible to express an opinion based on experience with regard to the procedure in the case of a Federal Court, because there is no experience on which to base it. One can only base it on the experience which the Provincial High Courts have already had. I recognise, however, that the position under the Clause is an improvement on the existing provision, and I was just drawing attention to the fact that the Governor-General might find himself in a difficult position—

The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but I do not seem to be able to explain the matter to the Noble Lady. There is no doubt that these moneys about which she is so troubled are not moneys which are votable, but moneys which are charged on the revenue. In the particular case provided for in this Clause, they are charged upon the revenues of the Federation under this particular Clause.

Duchess of ATHOLL: It will rest with the Governor-General to cut down estimates which may have been presented by the Federal Court, and the Governor-General may find himself in a rather difficult position. The Federal Court may present to him a demand for a sum which criticism of the Federal Court, or possibly of the Federal Legislature or of Ministers, may make it
difficult for him to grant. I wish to say before we pass from the Clause, that the Committee should realise that this is one of the many instances in which the Bill imposes a very heavy, and possibly a very difficult responsibility upon the Governor-General, but I recognise that from the point of view of the Federal Court, it ought not to be placed in a better position relatively than that in which the High Court has been placed and, therefore, I do not propose to ask my hon. Friend to proceed further with his Amendment.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: After giving very careful consideration to the courteous reply of the learned Solicitor-General, I would like to withdraw the Amendment, but, before doing so, I wish to say that we on these benches have given much anxious labour in considering the exact meaning of these Clauses. I am happy that we have been reassured at any rate to some extent by the reply of the learned Solicitor-General, and I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment after a discussion o which, I am sure, has been of great value to the Committee in trying to ascertain the exact meaning of the Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.32 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Before we pass this Clause finally, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Has he or his financial advisers arrived at any estimate of the actual cost of the Federal Court? What will be the salaries of judges and the staff and the cost of the buildings? We have been told that the extra cost of Federation will be about £560,000. How many items are included in the £560,000? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us if possible, the cost of the Federal Court, and whether it is included in the £560,000?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend the figure off-hand. I will see if there is an estimate and let him have it, if there is one. There must be an estimate, because it has been included in the £500,000 odd of extra
expenditure, but what it is exactly I cannot say off-hand.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 207.—(Construction of references to High Courts in States.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.33 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I only want to ask a question regarding this Clause. It does not seem to be quite clear as to how many States and what kind of courts will have sufficient status to be termed a high court for the purposes of the Act. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, there are very few States which have anything that can possibly be called a high court. In fact, there are cases in which there are magistracies which are not qualified in any way to have the status of a high court or to have appeals considered by the Federal Court. It is possible that certain States, if they federate, might combine by agreement to have a common court for those States which might be considered qualified to be a high court. In the absence of anything of that nature in this Clause, it is very difficult to know by what principle and what method a court qualified to be a high court in the Federal State will be determined. I should like the Government to give me such information as they can of their intentions in the matter of these High Courts in the Federated States.

5.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Under this Clause, it will be for the Crown to say what courts should be determined to be high courts for the purposes of this part of the Act. Such decisions will be by the Crown after communication with the Ruler of a State, but the decision will rest with the Crown.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 208.—(Savings.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Duchess of ATHOLL: May we be told to what sort of territory the Clause refers?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause is only included with a view to
making good the intention of the Government to maintain the right of appeal from the court at Aden to the High Court at Bombay.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 209.—(Meaning of "High Court.")

5.35 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 117, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, if provision has been made before the commencement of Part III of this Act for the establishment of a High Court to replace any court or courts mentioned in this sub-section, then as from the establishment of the new court this section shall have effect as if the new court were mentioned therein in lieu of the court or courts so replaced.
This is an Amendment to meet the possibility of what is now the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the Central Provinces and Berar being, as may well happen, converted into a High Court before this Bill becomes an Act. At present it is referred to as what it is now, namely, the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the Central Provinces and Berar. It may well be that before the Bill becomes an Act it will have been turned into a High Court, and the Amendment merely makes provision in case that happens before that date.

Duchess of ATHOLL: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned specific bodies, is there any intention of converting the Judicial Commissioners of Sind?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I understand the matter, the question only affects the court in the Central Provinces, which, independently of the Bill, is about to be made into a High Court. This may result in it having become a High Court not under the Bill but before the Bill comes into operation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 210.—(Constitution of High Courts.)

5.37 p.m.

Mr. CAMPBELL KER: I beg to move, in page 117, line 17, to leave out "Governor," and to insert, "Governor-General."
May I ask for Ruling, Sir Dennis, as to whether this Amendment raises the
general question of the control of the High Courts, or whether that question should be postponed to Clause 217?

The CHAIRMAN: My view is that this particular Amendment is the first one which deals with, and is probably the most convenient occasion for discussing, the main question, or the whole principle of whether the supervision of the High Courts, that is, the Courts in the Provinces, should be under the Federal Government or under the Provincial Government. I will ask hen. Members to bear that fact in mind, and to confine the discussions to that particular principle, and upon matters falling within that principle.

Mr. BAILEY: On a point of Order, and for my guidance, may I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether, in discussing this Amendment it will be in order to discuss the various points as to the constitution of the High Courts which are raised in other Amendments?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think definitely not. That is why I pointed out that I hoped hon. Members, in taking as wide a discussion as possible on the principle of whether supervision should be by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government would confine themselves to that principle. The hon. Member and other hon. Members have Amendments down to this Clause in connection with qualifications of the judges, which is an entirely different matter, and must arise on one or more of those Amendments.

Mr. KER: The general case raised by the Amendment is the principle that the administrative control of High Courts in the Provinces should rest with the Federal and not with the Provincial Government. The principle has been agreed upon by all authorities who have studied the question, namely, the Statutory Commission and the Joint Select Committee, that the High Court in the Provinces ought to be independent both of politics and of the executive government of the Provinces. The Bill itself carries out that principle to a large extent, and the object of the Amendment is to carry it still further. It is important, as everyone has agreed, that the High Courts in India should not only be free from political or executive control, but that they should seem to be free from
it. It must be apparent to the public that they are not in any way under the domination of the Executive. In other words, the High Court in India, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion. At present the position in India is that in the High Court in Bengal the administrative control is in the hands of the Government of India. The administrative control in other High Courts in India remains in the Provinces, as it has from the start, but in Bengal the High Court has grown up along with the Governor-General of India, and the control of the High Court has always been in the hands of the Central Government. When the change from a single Province to two Provinces took place that control remained, and in 1911, when the Province of Bengal was reunited into a single Province, which was the time when any change ought to have been made, the High Court was still left under the Government of India. The reason was that public opinion in Bengal, both European and Indian, would have been strongly opposed to any proposals to remove the control from the Government of India to a new government of Bengal.
The Secretary of State will remember that during the sittings of the Joint Select Committee this question was raised with considerable force both by the European and Indian public of Bengal, and a large number of questions were asked in connection with it. I think my right hon. Friend would be glad if he could find that all the questions in this Bill received the same kind of European and Indian support as has been received by the proposal which I am now putting forward. One of the chief reasons why the control should be with the Federal Government and not the Provincial Government is, that these Provincial High Courts try cases not between the Federation and the Provinces, but between the residents of the Provinces, among themselves, and between the public in the Provinces and the Government of the Provinces. Therefore, it is important that the control should remain with the Government, which has no direct interest in the cases to be tried by it. It has been suggested that the control of administration means that the courts are in some way connected with the controlling government. In that ease the argument for the Amendment is even stronger, because the
Federal Government is not interested in the great majority of cases, indeed, has no interest at all in the cases which the Provincial High Courts will try, but the Provincial Governments may have very considerable interest in those cases, particularly in criminal cases, which are cases between the Provincial Government and the residents in the Provinces. That argument is strongly in favour of the Amendment.
Another point which falls to be considered is the financial question. The administrative control if it remains with the Provinces means that the Provincial Governments will have to find the money for the expenses of the High Court. It is well known to Members of the Committee that in India the finances of the Provinces are notoriously fluctuating. You may have in one Province a famine or a scarcity which lasts for one season only and is very local in its effect. The result of that may be that the finances of that particular Province suffer for that year, but it does not mean that the Federal finances are necessarily suffering to the same extent. If in a Province there is a scarcity one year and difficulty with regard to the financial position, there will be every encouragement for the local government to try to bring about economies, and perhaps make undesirable economies in the case of the High Court, whereas under the Amendment the expenses will fall on the Federal Government and the adjustments which are necessary can be made with the Provincial Governments so as to carry over from a year of scarcity to a year when there is no difficulty.
In Bihar, for instance, the Government last year might have found great difficulty in finding funds for the High Court on account of the earthquakes. A similar catastrophe has occurred in other Provinces, and great difficulties have been found. Under the Bill as it stands the expenses of the High Court fall to be discussed by the Provincial Councils. It is true that the salaries of the judges do not fall on the Provincial revenues but the expenses of the High Court, the buildings and the expenses of the staff, although they are not voted by the Provincial Councils, fall to be discussed by them, and experience has shown that in the past that has led to very undesir-
able discussions in the Provincial Councils. The Joint Select Committee were given several examples of that kind, where discussions reflected on the judges of the High Court and did very much to spoil the prestige in which they were held in that particular Province.
If the Amendment were accepted, these expenses would have to be met by the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature where there would be no room and no time for detailed discussions about the particular judges of any particular High Court. The Joint Select Committee considered this question very carefully and came to a different conclusion from the Statutory Commission. The Joint Select Committee came to this conclusions for two reasons, one being that the High Court would be regarded as connected with the Federation and therefore an outside body in the Province. There are two answers to that. The first is that that feeling has not so far been felt in Bengal. At the time I was in India public opinion in Bengal would have been strongly opposed to the removal of the High Court of Bengal from the Government of India, and public opinion would still be opposed to that change. When I say "public opinion" I mean both European and Indian opinion in Calcutta and Bengal. The second answer is that the High Courts do not decide Federal cases except under very exceptional circumstances, so that the interest of the Federal Government in the decisions of the High Courts is very small.
The second argument used by the Joint Select Committee against this proposal is that the financial difficulties would be very great, and that if we placed the High Courts under the Federal Government the financial adjustments would cause considerable difficulty. To that again there is an answer, and that is that the question would not be so much a financial question as one purely of accounting, because the High Courts are very largely self-supporting; the revenue derived is usually equal to the expenditure. If the financial question is to be taken into account, it rather tells in favour of the Amendment, because the finances of the Provinces are fluctuating and may be applied with considerable difficulty. For these reasons, therefore, because it is wanted by the people who are mostly affected by it, especially in
Bengal, and because it will make the High Court independent, I move the Amendment. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendments form part of the same proposal, namely, to place the High Court of the Provinces under the control of the Federal Government and not under the Provincial Governments.

5.52 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Campbell Ker) speaks with great experience upon any Indian question, and I am sure that we have all listened to him with great interest. I rise to put before the Committee the reasons that led the Joint Select Committee to make the recommendation that, administratively, the High Courts should be Provincial rather than Federal. I admit that in making that recommendation the Joint Select Committee were taking a line different from the line recommended by the Statutory Commission. My answer in a sentence to any hon. Member who asks why they went contrary to the recommendation of the Statutory Commission is that the Joint Select Committee were really considering a different system of government. I suggest to my hon. Friend that there are considerable differences between a state of affairs in which a Government becomes a Federal Government, with the Federal and the Provincial fields delimited by Statute, and the state of affairs contemplated by the Statutory Commission, under which the unitary government at the Centre still continues to exist.
It is true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that opinion in Bengal has been definitely in favour of continuing the present arrangement, under which the Bengal High Court at Calcutta is centrally administered, and not administered by the Province of Bengal. The Joint Select Committee went into the question in some detail and came to the view that, whatever may have been the historical reasons that led to this special treatment of the High Court at Calcutta, the system in actual practice is not working well. What is happening is that the Central Government is little more than a letterbox for administrative questions connected with the Bengal High Court. All that is really happening is delay in getting questions settled in connection with the High Court, the Central Gov-
ernment playing little more than the part of a letterbox, communications going from Bengal to Delhi and back from Delhi to the Province for the purpose of getting an action recommended taken, and as a result, taken after considerable delay. In the view, therefore, of the Joint Select Committee the present system in Bengal is not working well.
Be that as it may, let us look at the two alternative proposals and dismiss from our minds any idea that there is any difference of principle between one section of opinion and another. I remember very well that in the Joint Select Committee, at the outset of our discussion of this question, opinion was mobilised in two very distinct camps. On the one hand, there were the strong adherents of Provincial autonomy represented particularly by the Moslem community, taking the view that the High Courts ought to be Provincial. On the other hand there was the Hindu community, supported by other sections of opinion in India taking the view that the courts ought to be Federal. When we went further into the question we came to the conclusion that there was not a great gulf of principle between those two points of view. In fact, the extremer views on both sides seemed to us to be based on a series of misunderstandings. They were, first of all, based on anxiety as to the appointments of the judges. We were easily able to disabuse the minds of the Indian delegates and the members of the Joint Select Committee on that point. There need be no anxiety in regard to that, for the very simple reason that we are making these appointments Crown appointments, that is to say, neither Federal nor Provincial. So far as that particular controversy is concerned it has ceased to exist.
Secondly, there was anxiety as to the salaries of the judges and the expenses of the courts, one side taking the view that the salaries of the judges and the expenses of the court were more likely to be met if the charges were Federal charges. There, again, I think we were able to remove difficulties in the minds of certain of the Indian delegates by making it clear, as we make it clear in the Bill, that the salaries of the judges and the administrative expenses of the courts are non-votable. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan seemed
anxious as to whether even though they are non-votable, there might not be a risk in the case of the Provinces of not having sufficient money to meet the charge. He need not be anxious on that point for the very good reason that in the principal provinces the cost of the administration of the courts is more than paid for by the fees. In the Province of Bengal I believe the Provincial Government makes a considerable profit out of the courts. That shows that there is no risk in the Provinces of the charges not being met.

Sir B. PETO: Has the Secretary of State noticed that the amendment is to the proviso which says:
any additional judges appointed by the Governor.
That seems to imply that the Governor deals with the appointment of additional judges, whereas the right hon. Gentleman says that the question is entirely removed, and that they are to be appointed by His Majesty.

Sir S. HOARE: They are to be appointed by the Crown in every case.

Sir B. PETO: Then what does the proviso mean? It says: Provided that the judges so appointed together with any additional judges appointed by the Governor.

Sir S. HOARE: In the case of additional judges the appointment is to be made by the Governor acting as the agent of the Governor-General and the Secretary of State.

Sir B. PETO: That is what we do not want.

Sir S. HOARE: I hope that the hon. Baronet will not attach too much importance to that difference. There is very little difference between the two. The Governor or the Governor-General will act as the agent of the Secretary of State and the Imperial Parliament as a matter of convenience in the case of additional judges, who will presumably be appointed in a case of emergency. It is better that the appointment in that case should come from the Governor, but even if the Governor-General was substituted for the Governor, the Governor-General would inevitably act on the recommendation of the Governor of the Province. Turning to the larger issues on this question, there was evidently a feeling that
less pressure would be likely to be exercised by the executive upon the High Courts if they were controlled by the Federal centre. That is not the view of the local governments. We have received no indication that pressure of this kind will be exercised by local executives, and in my view, if there is likely to be pressure—we have a number of safeguards against it—I think you are as likely to get pressure exercised at the centre as you are in the local governments. That argument is not a valid one in favour of federalising the High Courts.
But what is the real difficulty if we adopt the Amendment? The hon. Member will agree that the subordinate judiciary must be provincial. In India there is not the distinction in the lower ranks between the executive and the subordinate judiciary, and it is quite inevitable whether you federalise the High Courts or keep them provincial, as they are now, with the exception of the High Court of Calcutta, that the subordinate judiciary will have to be provincial. I suggest that there is every objection against taking the higher ranks of the judicature and making them federal while maintaining the lower ranks under provincial administration. All sorts of administrative difficulties will at once occur, and, apart from those, it seems to me that there will be a grave danger of the Provinces regarding the High Court as isolated and insulated from the Province itself, as something imposed by the Federation from outside, with the result that there will be much more likelihood of friction between the local government on the one hand and the High Court on the other, and, within the Province, between the subordinate judiciary, which is to remain part of the administration, and the federalised High Court. I suggest to the Committee that the Joint Select Committee was wise in making the recommendation that these courts should remain part of the provincial administration, accompanied by the safeguards that they are to be Crown appointments and that the expenses are to be non-votable charges on provincial budgets. I think that we should be wise to accept the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee.

6.7 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I want to investigate a little further the question which I put to
the Secretary of State. I have had representations made to me from European associations who attach great importance to the Amendment. One of the reasons why they want to substitute the Governor-General for the Governor is that they want to preserve the outward appearance of a complete severance of the supreme judiciary of a province from the executive of the province. The Secretary of State says that if an additional judge should be required and the Amendment was in operation, under which the Governor-General would be the person to appoint the additional judge, it would not make any difference, because the Governor-General would act on the advice of the Governor. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or not, but, apart from that point of view, all those who will have to live and work under these high courts, who will have their cases decided by them, think that it will make a great difference, perhaps not actually in practice, if we remove all appearance of the high court being closely connected with the executive of the Province.
There are even more substantial reasons than that. They want the Amendment because they desire to maintain, as they regard it, the absolute independence of the courts from all political influences. If we take out the reference to the Governor of a Province and substitute the Federal Legislature, which is far removed, we are doing something which is in accordance with the ordinary understanding of the Indian people generally. They regard a thing which is remote and afar like the Governor-General and appreciate the power and independence of such an authority, but when you bring it nearer to them and give the legislature the government of their own Province, whom they elect by their votes the power to make these appointments you are bringing in an element which is undesirable in connection with the high court of a Province. There is a great deal more to be said on this matter than what the Secretary of State has said. It may be true that the question has been carefully considered and that a new decision has been arrived at, but I am not satisfied that it is better than the old decision. The more you remove the administration of justice from the actual legislature of a Province, the more you are likely to
have it respected. I hope that the Government will be willing not only to listen to the admirable exposition which has been given of this matter by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but that they will allow the Committee to consider whether the decision which has been arrived at is better than the one which was previously given, and decide that it is not wise to bring the administration of the high courts under the government Of a Province.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: On the general question as to whether the High Court in a Province should be administered by the Province, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has made an unalterable case for the programme which is proposed, but the Amendment with which we are dealing, which refers to the appointment of the judges in the High Court—

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member was in the Committee when the Amendment was moved, when I gave an indication as to the limits of the Debate.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I was addressing myself to the question as to whether the appointment of judges in the High Court should, as a matter of form, be the appointment of the Governor-General. My only object in rising was to point out one or two considerations which strike me, as to whether it would not add to the status of High Court judges in the Provinces if the formal appointment were made by the Governor-General.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The High Court judges ordinarily are to be appointed by the Crown.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am dealing with the additional judges referred to in the Amendment now before the Committee. I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for correcting me in the language that I used. It occurs to me that the status of these additional judges might be increased by the fact that the formal appointment comes from the Governor-General. I do not think that these matters of form are sometimes quite sufficiently appreciated, in the effect that they are likely to have on the people who litigate and have to act under the judgments and orders of the particular judges. I do not wish to say a single
word on the general principle that is involved, and I merely throw out this suggestion as one which perhaps the Secretary of State might think worthy of a little further consideration.

6.16 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should not venture to intrude into a discussion on a point that might seem only to concern people of legal experience if it were not that I have devoted a little time to studying the evidence on which the Statutory Commission made their recommendation; and because I was extremely impressed by that evidence I have taken considerable interest in this question, and I am afraid I must say that I feel that my right hon. Friend's answer to the Amendment was not very convincing. His first reason for not accepting the Amendment was that the form of government proposed in the Bill is something different from what the Statutory Commission contemplated. But if we are all agreed that desire to keep the executive and the judiciary as independent of each other as possible, is that really a very valid argument? The independence of the judiciary is something of such fundamental importance that there can be very few arguments, if any, that can stand against it.
My right hon. Friend's second point was that the Joint Select Committee have said that the Bengal system is not working well. With great respect I ask what judicial evidence the Joint Committee heard on this point. Did they call before them any representative of the Bengal High Court to give an account of how the system was working from the point of view of the judges of the High Court Themselves? Did they question any judge of any other High Court on this point? Did they consider the memoranda presented to the Statutory Commission by no fewer than three High Courts showing how greatly, in their view, the independence of the High Courts was already being threatened by a system which required them to depend for administrative expenses on the votes of provincial councils? It would be interesting to hear a reply to these questions. Then my right hon. Friend spoke of the interest taken by Hindus and Moslems in this question, Hindus favouring the courts being under federal government and the Moslems favouring the present system,
and he indicated that this interest largely centred round the question of appointments.

Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry if I misunderstood my right hon. Friend, but if he looks to-morrow at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that after mentioning the interest of Hindus and Moslems he quickly referred to the question of appointments, and knowing what interest is taken in appointments on communal grounds—

Sir S. HOARE: I never mentioned it or went near it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully at that part of his speech to-morrow. Even if I am wrong, surely we know that both these great communities do take great interest in appointments of all kinds from the communal point of view. It is a recognised thing. My right hon. Friend yesterday mentioned it as something that had to be taken into account in another connection. That fact and the interest taken in it by representatives of these communities do indicate the danger that if you have a court too near to, the community that may hope to get appointments, not so much as judges themselves as of the personnel of the court, you may have a. very undesirable interest taken in the courts.
Then my right hon. Friend stressed that the administrative expenditure of the Courts would no longer be votable, or anyhow such part of it as the Governor felt that he could recommend to the Provincial Legislature; but he omitted to remind us that it would still be possible for the Provincial Legislature to discuss and criticise the expenditure. That is admitted in Record 3, where the change of procedure now embodied in the Bill is outlined. It is admitted in Record 3 that, though the expenditure or as much of it as is certified by the Governor would be non-votable, the Courts would not be spared the criticism of the Provincial Legislature. If you once admit that there may be a continuance of criticism which has been found hampering to several of the High Courts, you may have a continuance of a system which some of these High Courts definitely said would threaten their independence.
The Secretary of State went on to say that he thought less pressure would be exercised on a High Court by the Federal Government than by a Provincial Government and he said that that was not the view of the Provincial Governments themselves. But can we expect the Provincial Governments to admit that they might be ready to put pressure on the High Courts of their Province

Sir S. HOARE: I wish my noble Friend would make her statement on her own thoughts and not quote me.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Again I hope that my right hon. Friend will look very carefully at what he did say. He used the phrase "local government" instead of "provincial government" That is a phrase which is misleading to people in this country and as I did not use it I plead guilty to having paraphrased my right hon. Friend's speech to that extent, We have to bear in mind that the pressure which may occur in the case of a High Court is pressure in regard to the minor appointments, of clerks and various officials of the Courts. Quite obviously that is pressure which is more likely to come locally than from a central source. As a matter of fact I have been informed by an ex-Judge of a High Court that if any person who wanted an appointment of this kind in a High Court did not get it he was very apt to become "an enemy of the High Court"—those were the very words my informant used—and then the High Courts would be opposed and criticised in the Provincial Legislature. I do feel that the danger is very real. May I read to the Committee one or two extracts from the Memoranda submitted to the Statutory Commission on which the Commission based their opinion? Here is a brief extract from the Memorandum of the Bengal High Court:
The Court reviewed the history of this Court for a period of nearly 60 years and pointed out how, on several occasions the head of the local government had attempted directly to interfere with the independence of this Court and of the courts over which this Court had superintendence.
Therefore they gave a strong expression of opinion against being transferred to the Provincial Government. They quoted the opinion of the late Mr. Justice Mukerjee, who, on 1st September, 1921, wrote as follows
In my opinion the continuance of the present state of things is impossible, as it
is harmful in the highest degree and is calculated to impair very seriously the prestige and efficiency of the court. The present position is that in all financial matters we are subject to the control of the Government of Bengal, that is, of the Bengal Legislative Council. The dangers inseparable from such a position have been well illustrated by recent events.
Then the Punjab High Court also sent in a very strong statement:
The judges in their administrative functions find their proposals and actions exposed to public debate and criticism in the Legislative Council … In the event of greater power being granted to the Council and the Ministers, they cannot view with equanimity the possibility of the Council adopting measures designed to harass the judges in their administrative functions or calculated to lower the efficiency of the judiciary.
We must bear in mind that, though the administrative expenditure will be non-votable as certified by the Governor, the Court is still to be open to the criticism of the Provincial Legislature. They go on:
When the reforms are extended in British India there will probably arise many questions of importance affecting the constitution and the rights and liberties of the people which will require determination by the highest tribunals of the land. Political parties or political leaders may bring their disputes before the courts of law and the decisions of the courts may not he liked by them.
They therefore expressed their approval of the recommendation made by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, that the High Courts should be put under the central Government. The Commission wrote to the Chief Justice of the High Court in Madras and got from him an equally strong statement of this view. The Bombay High Court also spoke of the fear of loss of independence, though they said they had been more fortunate than other courts. Therefore, the weight of evidence submitted to the Statutory Commission in favour of this change was very great. From what I have been able to see of the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee, I cannot recollect that they had any evidence so weighty or so specific recommending them to take the opposite course. Unless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can tell us on what evidence, weighty and specific evidence, it was that the Joint Committee overturned the recommendations of the Stautory Commission, I hope that my
hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

Mr. CAMPBELL KER: After the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question put, "That the word 'Governor' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 44.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[6.30p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Eastwood, John Francis
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Law, Sir Alfred


Albery, Irving James
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lawson, John James


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Entwistie, Cyril Fullard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Leonard, William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lewis, Oswald


Attlee, Clement Richard
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Liddall, Walter S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Walsh Univ.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fermoy, Lord
Liewellin, Major John J.


Banfield, John William
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Batey, Joseph
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Loftus, Pierce C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fox, Sir Gifford
Logan, David Gilbert


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fremantie, Sir Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bernays, Robert
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lunn, William


Bilndell, James
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mabane, William


Boulton, W. W.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E.W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Goldie, Noel B.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McKie, John Hamilton


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Burghley, Lord
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
MacLean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Butler, Richard Austen
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grimston, R. V.
Magnay, Thomas


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Groves, Thomas E.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, Charles


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Christie, James Archibald
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cleary,. J. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, Patrick


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, Wilfred


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Parkinson, John Allen


Cooper, A. Duff
Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, Colin M.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peake, Osbert


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pearson, William G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peat, Charles U.


Cross, R. H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Daggar, George
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Petherick, M.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jamieson, Douglas
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jenkins, Sir William
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
John, William
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Denville, Alfred
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Dickle, John p.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dobble, William
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Doran, Edward
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rickards, George William


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kirkwood, David
Rothschild, James A, de


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Soper, Richard
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Salt, Edward W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stevenson, James
West, F. R.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
White, Henry Graham


Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Stones, James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Sandys, Duncan
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wilmot, John


Shute, Colonel Sir John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Thorne, William James
Womersley, Sir Walter


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tinker, John Joseph
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)



Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd' & K' dine, C.)
Tree, Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Jones


Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Atholl, Duchess of
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Templeton, William P.


Bracken, Brendan
Hartington, Marquess of
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Ker, J. Campbell
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Burnett, John George
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Turton, Robert Hugh


Clarke, Frank
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lees-Jones, John
Wells, Sidney Richard


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest



Davison, Sir William Henry
Maxton, James.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Donner, P. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Mr. Raikes and Mr. Wise.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

6.38 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call upon the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) to move the next Amendment may I suggest that it would be convenient if on that Amendment we also discussed the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp)—in page 118, line 11, to insert:
(4) Provided that not less than one-third of the judges of a High Court, including the Chief Justice but excluding additional judges, must be such barristers or advocates as aforesaid and that not less than one-third must be members of the Indian Civil Service."—
and also the point raised in a manuscript Amendment which has been handed in by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). That Amendment would, I think, be too long and complicated to put to the Committee without having it on the Order Paper.

Mr. BAILEY: On a point of Order. Would it be in order also to discuss in connection with these Amendments the manuscript Amendment which I handed in earlier and which is also concerned
with the constitution of the High Court?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I gather that the Chairman does not propose to select the hon. Member's manuscript Amendment.

6.40 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 118, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that not less than one-third of the judges of any High Court including the chief justice must be barristers or advocates as aforesaid.
It would be impossible, I think, to exaggerate the importance of having a first-class personnel manning these tribunals in India. The well-being of a country is always associated with the independence, integrity and ability of its judges. India has enjoyed the services of independent and able judges, and it is particularly important that they should be endowed with those qualities, because there is no other part of the world where litigation is mare indulged in or more enjoyed by the inhabitants. Anybody who is interested in the law must have been struck by the manner in which Indian opinion has been stirred
by the decision of the Government to do away with that Section of the Government of India Act of 1915 which provided that the Chief Justice should be a barrister. The matter does not appear to have been canvassed very much in public, but since the proposals of the Government have found expression in this Bill, a great volume of opinion has manifested itself in India, not only among lawyers but also among laymen, to the effect that there is no apparent ground for having as the chief justices of these High Courts persons who are not barristers.
It seems fairly obvious that if you were appointing, say, a physician to the Sovereign, or an accountant to act for the Government, you would select a highly skilled and highly trained medical man in the one case or a highly qualified accountant in the other, and there is a natural prejudice in favour of maintaining in India the existing practice by which the chief justice in that country for 150 years past has always been a barrister of at least 10 years standing. I hope Members of the Committee will not think that this Amendment is brought forward or supported here by lawyers acting from any trade union point of view. The number of English barristers practicing in India is infinitesimal and the stream of Englishmen going out to man the judicature or the Civil Service in India is likely to become more and more in the nature of a very small rivulet. We are only concerned in this matter with what is best for India and the peoples of India in the future.
The view expressed in this Amendment is that there is no ground for departing from the existing system in force since 1774, by which the chief justice has always been a barrister. That practice was confirmed in the Act of 1915 under which the qualification was extended to include Scottish advocates. When the Bill was under discussion yesterday the Secretary of State, in reply to one of my hon. Friends who moved an Amendment in regard to the Chief Justice of the Federal Judicature, said he would sympathetically consider the idea that only a barrister or an advocate should act in that capacity. The same reasoning applies to the Provincial Constitutions. The work to be done by a chief justice
of the High Court of a Province will be work of the utmost importance affecting the lives and interests of a great mass of people—probably a great many more than those who are directly concerned in the cases which come before the Federal court. Moreover, in the case of the Federal Court we are dealing with a new office. As regards the High Court in a Province it is an old office with an existing system under which the chief justice has, since 1774, been a man who has practiced at the Bar.
I urge upon this Committee that the burden of proof in this case rests upon those who wish to show that a change is necessary. There is no evidence that this system has not worked well. I looked in the report of the Joint Select Committee to see the recommendation upon which this proposal had been founded, and I will come to their argument later, but there is no suggestion that the work of the chief justice or of the judges has not been performed well, or that there is any marked need for a change, nor is there anything in that report to say that there is any movement either among the legal profession or among the public in India in favour of a change. But I do not want to base my case only on the fact that the burden of proof rests on the Government. I wish to submit grounds on which, in my submission, it is desirable to have as chief justice a man who has had considerable experience at the Bar. I contend that a man who has practised at the Bar is best qualified to fulfil the high functions with which the office of chief justice is associated.
I do not dream of reflecting on the ability or the conduct or the experience of members of the Civil Service. They possess many qualities which a judge or a chief justice is less likely to possess to the same degree; they have local knowledge, and know a great deal about local customs; but the work of a chief justice requires something more than a knowledge of local customs and languages. He has to deal with questions of equity, of constitutional law and of commercial law of first rate importance, for which legal knowledge and legal training are essential requisites, and in the nature of things a judge who has acted as a civil servant, although on many sides of his work he enjoys great advantages, and
has very great experience, cannot compete with a trained and experienced barrister on those points of law with which he has to deal as a. chief justice and with which a local judge is much less likely to come into contact. That is one reason why it is desirable that the chief justice should be a barrister. The second is that we are dealing here with what will be an Indianised Bench and Bar, and I suggest that it is an advantage for a judge never to have been a civil servant, never to have acted as an employé of the Executive Government and never to have acquired the mentality which, consciously or unconsciously, a, civil servant may easily acquire in matters which come before him in a court of law. I am not in the least reflecting upon India in saying this. It is our English principle which I am supporting in moving this Amendment.
In England, as distinguished from the Continent of Europe, the Bar supplies the Bench with its personnel. The Bench is not a branch of the Civil Service. In my submission the English principle is better than the Continental principle. It certainly makes for a more independent Bench, more independent in action and more independent in mind. Where we have, as on the Continent, judges who are civil servants we are much more likely to get that disciplined and docile type of judge who is perfectly willing, as we have seen recently in one great country, to see a purge made of persons whom the Government for the time being consider undesirable persons to act as judges. I cannot conceive that our English judicature would tolerate the things done with the judicature in other countries where judges are simply civil servants. The English principle makes for independence of judges, and stimulates also the view, which I was always taught to regard as a good one, that in England our constitutional law has been beaten out by decided cases. It is a curious thing that at a time when we in England are more and more in favour of having the judicature well separated from the Civil Service—not out of any disrespect for or dislike of the Civil Service as such, but because we consider the separation of the functions a good thing, and that is the burden of the report of the committee which dealt with the question of Minister's Powers—it is a curious thing that at a time when the
Lord Chief Justice of England is denouncing the new despotism of the Civil Service we should be introducing into India a system under which the chief justice in India need not have been a practising barrister at all and may simply be a civil servant who may not even have been called to the Bar.
To those like myself who are loyal supporters of the Government and admirers of this Bill, and who support it and champion it in the country as being the consummation of our promises to give self-government and self-governing institutions to the people of India, one of the attributes of freedom has been the idea that the judicature should be entirely separate from the Civil Service, and we do not want to see the opposite system introduced into India. So far as the chief justice is concerned the case for the retention of a system which has Already been the established order in India for 150 years, against which there has been no agitation and from which there is no reason to depart, is very strong. The Committee will, I am sure, be curious to know why the Joint Select Committee suggested that there should be this change. I have very carefully read the paragraphs which deal with the point. The only suggestion the Joint Committee make is that it is an invidious distinction that a barrister alone should be entitled to be a chief justice. To me that is an unconvincing argument. It is not an invidious distinction that in England a barrister can become a judge after having practised at the Bar for 10 years and that a solicitor or civil servant cannot. All we say is that all experience proves that the system of having as chief justice a man who has been at the Bar for 10 or 15 years has succeeded, and that there is no ground for giving it up.
Now I have a few words to say on the other portion of the Amendment, which is borrowed from the Government, of India Act, 1915. It leaves two-thirds to be allocated among a. class which would include native advocates, who are becoming more and more important in India, and who undoubtedly have turned out many good men well qualified to be judges, although they have not come to the Inns of Court in London to qualify. It leaves two-thirds vacant for the members of the Civil Service and for those advocates in India who are not barristers in England. Let
me make it clear that what I speak of barristers I am not talking about English barristers. Barristers connotes persons, whether Indian or British, who have been called to the Bar, and in 999 cases out of 1,000, so far as this section is concerned, they are Indians. The proposal also has the advantage of holding out an inducement for Indian students to come to the Bar in England. Many of them make great sacrifices to come here in order to be brought into touch with English practice and procedure and with English legal tradition, I think to their advantage, and I feel that if they do go to the trouble to come here and are qualified in other respects they ought to have their fair share of judicial office.
There really are no practical difficulties in the way, except that one-third is a fraction and it might be awkward to apply it sometimes, but it has not been found an insuperable difficulty in the past. I am not concerned with what the fraction is. If it were thought preferable to put it into figures we could say "one member on each tribunal of three," and that would meet our case. The point is that we do leave a margin for the Civil Service and for those Indian advocates who do not come to England to he called to the Bar here but are able and distinguished enough to be rightly entitled to hold judicial office. The one solitary argument advanced in the report of the Joint Select Committee in favour of the change—I am resisting the change—is that the existing system which has worked so well since 1774 makes an invidious distinction. I submit that there is no force or persuasion in that argument, and I think every legal Member of the House has received a large number of appeals from persons in India, from members of various branches of the legal profession and societies and associations in India, in favour of the view I have tried to put forward. Holding the view we do about the importance of having the very best men to fill the highest posts in the Indian law courts, it would be less than our duty not to support the Amendment.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I hope the Committee will not think that this is a sort
of lawyers' "thieves' kitchen." I was in the Committee yesterday when a similar Amendment was discussed, and I was pained to note that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who was watching the point on behalf of his party, to say that he was unable at that stage to give a decision on the point in view of the fact that the Amendment had been proposed by a lawyer, that lawyers had spoken to the Amendment and that the Solicitor-General had replied rather favourably to it. I was sorry to see the legal member of the Labour party leave the Chamber just now, because I am sure that even he would have supported the views so ably put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst). The object of this Amendment is to ensure, as far as practicable, the separation of the executive from the judiciary. It is a proposal which would not need the slightest arguing in this country. No one would suggest that there should be the connection between the executive and the judiciary in this country which there has been in India and which it is suggested should be increased. The suggestion of this Amendment is that there should be at the head of every High Court a man trained in the legal profession. Centuries of experience in this country have shown that that is a desirable state of affairs, and now that we are setting up a Constitution for India surely it is important that we should do our best to hand on to India at the outset of her career under these new reforms the benefits of that experience.
Under the Bill, as I understand it, all the judges of the High Court, including the Chief Justice, may be Civil Service judges and not have legal training in the ordinary way. The learned Solicitor-General, when he replied to the Debate about the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, said that Indian Civil Service Judges had considerable judicial experience. They have, but that is not to say that they have ever practiced in any court or have legal training in the ordinary sense, and I should put that in inverted commas, because those are the words of the Solicitor-General. He however, later said there is a difference between a judge of the ordinary Civil Service who has served as a magistrate and graduated through the various courts until he becomes a district judge
and a barrister who has actually practised.
This Amendment asks only for an ordinary training. These Indian Civil Service judges do, of course, have very wide judicial experience, going through a magistrate's court and becoming district judges; but 90 per cent. of their work is criminal, and the remaining 10 per cent. deals with such matters as insolvency. When they come to deal with vast matters of constitutional importance, it may be that they may not be the right men to have in that position—excellent men, no doubt, but not trained as legal men should be. The most important thing, to my mind, is that having been brought up in the Indian Civil Service, they must unconsciously become executive-minded. Unconsciously, there must be with them a considerable bias in favour of the executive. When the judge knows of the difficulties that the executive have to cope with, and what effect his judgment will have on the difficulties of his friends, he will be thinking all the time of that position, rather than whether his judgment is in accordance with the law.
I read the Amendment to this effect, that if it were passed then Indian barristers called in India would not be classed as barristers "as aforesaid" as in this Amendment. I hope the Attorney-General if he replies will not be put off by the words of this Amendment as drafted, because for my part I feel it would be impossible to maintain a connection with this country to the extent of insisting on white judges, or even that they should be those called to the Bar in this country. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will not reject the Amendment out of hand on the ground that members of the Indian Bar called in India, many of whom are distinguished men, are not covered by this Clause, but that he will include them by widening the Amendment. It does seem to me a matter of real importance to give to India the best constitution we can, ensuring that the judiciary is as free and independent as possible. It seems to me that the way to make it independent is to ensure that it shall not be executive-minded, but drawn from the independent legal profession.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I wish, if I may, to move the Amendment standing in my name, for
I understood, Captain Bourne, that you decided to take the two Amendments together.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member cannot move his Amendment at this moment because there is another Amendment before the Committee. He can, however, discuss the points raised.

Mr. THORP: I am very grateful to you. The Amendment that appears in. my name is designed with the same objects as those that the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) had in mind, to preserve the existing state of things, one-third of the judges to come from practicing members of the Bar. I do not wish to delay the Committee by attempting to improve on the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side, but I should like to anticipate what may be one of the answers in opposition to the apparent rigidity in these appointments. It might be said that at times it will be somewhat difficult to find a person from the Civil Service available at the moment to fill any vacancy that may occur. In Clause 212 the Governor is enabled to appoint temporary people pending appointments, and no such difficulty therefore ought to arise. I do hope that this system which has worked so well will be preserved as it is now, because of the extremely valuable training that the rough-and-tumble of actual practice really gives.

7.9 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very grateful to you, Captain Bourne, for saying that I may discuss the Amendment I handed in in manuscript. I thought it was handed in yesterday, and I was disappointed not to find it on the Order Paper to-day. I regret therefore that hon. Members have not got what is a complicated Amendment in front of them. It seeks to preserve a definite and adequate number of barrister judges, Indian Civil Service and pleader judges in every Court, and to ensure that the Chief Justice shall be a barrister judge. Instead of fixing at least one-third barristers, at least one-third Indian Civil Service judges, it proposes a numerical basis, which would mean in the case of a High Court bench which consisted of a multiple of three, that one-third would be barristers, Indian Civil Service, and Indian pleaders respectively. Where you had a
High Court bench of 10 or 11, you would have a proportion more favourable to pleaders than under the present system. At present, if you have a High Court consisting of 10 members, not less than one-third are barristers and one-third come from the Indian Civil Service. That means that out of 10 you must have four barristers and with the Chief Justice five, four Indian Civil Service judges, and that leaves only one pleader. In the case of a. High Court Bench of 11 you have two pleaders.
I understand that this is regarded as a grievance by the pleaders, the Indian-trained lawyer. My plan provides that in a High Court Bench consisting of nine you would have three barristers, three Indian Civil Service judges, and three pleaders. In a High Court Bench of 10 you would still continue with three barristers, three Civil Service judges, but you would have four pleaders, which would give a larger proportion of pleaders. This would therefore secure what is desirable, a definite and substantial number of barristers and Indian Civil Service judges, and yet would go some way to meet the claims of pleaders for a better proportion in High Courts, while ensuring the retention of a definite and considerable proportion of barristers and civilians in every High Court. That does seem to me of very great importance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side spoke strongly of the importance of retaining a proportion of barristers, but I think he was inclined to under-value the retention of a proportion of Indian Civil Service judges. The Select Committee stressed the value of these judges. It was important for them to do so, for any one who read the evidence before the Joint Select Committee would know that Indian delegates showed a good deal of hostility to them. It is important that in view of this hostility, the Joint Select Committee should have expressed appreciation of them, though I thought they failed in not asking for a definite proportion of these judges in the High Court.
I quite recognise the possibility that some of the Indian Civil Service judges might be rather executive-minded—one has to recognise that. Their great value, however, is, I understand, their knowledge of the people, of their languages, of their ways, of their customs, of the customs in one particular locality as com-
pared with another. Where the importance of that comes in is that by means of their knowledge they are able to test the credibility of witnesses in a way that no barrister judge coming from home could, who would not know the ways and customs of the people and might be completely taken in. Much evidence is available to the effect that it is not difficult to buy witnesses in India, so that it is important to have people on the Bench who can put witnesses through acid tests. For this reason I do regard my Amendment or that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) as of great importance. I would prefer my own Amendment because it does redress what I understand is a grievance. It has been impressed upon me by more than one ex-judge of the High Court how greatly these courts have won the confidence of the people. I have even been told that in one Province there is a saying that justice is not obtained until you reach the High Court. It seems of the utmost importance that you should not leave the question of proportion, the continuance of two very valuable elements, in the air in this way, but that you should try to ensure a definite and adequate proportion of barristers and Indian Civil Service judges in every court.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not believe with the last speaker that the judges should have local knowledge. It is the last thing wanted. You should have as they had in the Middle Ages, in Genoa, Venice and Rome, the practice of taking their chief justice from other towns, because they did not want these men to have any local knowledge, wanting them just to judge the cases before them. That is the advantage of having men who are members either of the Faculty of Advocates or the English Bar, who are trained barristers, who may be Indians trained in India, because, once they have become members of that great profession, they develop a code of conduct which you cannot breed anywhere else. They get an idea of what is right. We all look back with pride to English history, because it was the members of the Bar, the barristers and judges, who vindicated English liberties against the tyrannies of the executive in the old days. They were the one citadel where the Englishman could stand safe from executive tyranny. The hon. and learned Member for Moss
Side (Sir G. Hurst) ought to be astonished at his own moderation in stipulating for one-third.
Where would we be in England or Scotland if all our judges were not properly trained for their business? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to make cheap jests, as he did yesterday, at this profession. I would like to ask him, as a member of the teaching profession, how he would like the suggestion to reserve the most important posts in the profession to people who had not been trained as teachers. This is a question of trained barristers who have had a considerable court practice, who have been in the rough and tumble of the court and who know how to sift and judge evidence in a way that the executive civil servant and business man cannot do. In ordinary business affairs such as they deal with complete proof is not required to be sought in the painstaking and laborious way in which the court must conduct cases if they are to do justice. They are apt to jump to conclusions, for they have not had an analytical training.
If we are to present Indians with courts of justice, the least we can do is to give them courts which are as well equipped as our own in respect of legal training. It is, of course, said that these people may have had some training as magistrates in small cases. The cases with which magistrates have to deal, however, are mainly small criminal cases and matters of no special moment; but when we come to questions which come before the High Court we must have a properly trained judge. I appeal to Members of the Opposition; I appeal to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who is a good trade unionist. He would not like to see somebody in the engineering trade put in a high position if he had not served an apprenticeship.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It has been done.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I admit that it has been done, and that is all the more reason why it should not be repeated. I have no interest in this matter. I have shot my bolt in regard to the legal profession, and I am only speaking for the good of the public and of the Indians, because I regard the whole of this Bill as a dubious experiment in governing Orientals by the unimaginative Anglo-
Saxon race. If we are to give them courts of justice, let us see that at least they are courts staffed by men with the necessary legal training and juridical skill.

7.20 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: With regard to these Amendments, I have not the slightest idea why it is necessary to change the existing law which has been in force with perfectly satisfactory results for a large number of years. The suggestion was that the possibility of an Indian Civil Service judge being Chief Justice was invidious and should no longer continue. As a matter of fact, however, the selection of the Chief Justice will depend on the people who appoint him. It is very unlikely that any judge of the Indian Civil Service would be selected as Chief Justice. Under the existing practice in law, when a Chief Justice goes on a long vacation to England, or is put on other duties, or when there is a vacancy owing to illness, it may happen that an Indian Civil Service judge of experience—he must be very senior before he can be appointed—may fill the place for a short time. There is no objection to that under the existing law. It was unnecessary to alter these proportions. I will dwell mostly at the moment on the question of the Indian Civil Service judges. These judges are not people who have been trying petty cases such as come before the ordinary magistrate. They have been magistrates and have many times acted as district magistrates; they have had powers to deal with important cases, and have full experience and that judicial frame of mind to which so many hon. Members have referred.
The Indian Civil Service man goes through a probation in England. In my time it used to be two years, but I am afraid it is shorter now. That probation included considerable studies of law and a long time spent in the courts. He went round the courts from the magistrate's court up to the King's Bench and the Old Bailey, and made notes of cases and submitted full reports on them. He saw the methods by which British justice was conducted, and it was most valuable help thereafter, not only if he were a judge, but if he had ordinary executive work. A certain amount of judicial training is important in executive work. These officers have their training as magistrates, and the usual rule is that
after seven or eight years the members of the Indian Civil Service are expected to choose whether they will be transferred, as it were, to the judicial side of the service or whether they will remain on the executive. If they decide to go to the judicial side, they are put in appointments which give them special experience in judicial business. They have to pass severe departmental examinations when they are young men and they have every encouragement and desire to improve their law. When they come home and study, some of them get called to the Bar and others work up those sections of the law with which they are less familiar.
It is absurd to surmise that these gentlemen will have an executive mind. After all, if a man is put on judicial duties, and if he is an Englishman, he will, from his very characteristics as belonging to that race, require to be independent and to feel independent, and he will resent any attempt by outsiders to influence his decisions. I have always found from my experience—and I have had many of these judges working under me in the Central Provinces and Bombay; in fact I had to appoint them all—that when you make an experienced magistrate into a judge the one thing he insists upon is that he is independent, and that, whatever may be his position as executive officer, he now adopts an entirely different attitude. I can assure the Committee that the cases in which any subservience to the executive can be detected in the work of the Indian Civil Service judges are almost negligible; I might even say nil. One sees very strongly the way in which the change in employment impresses itself on the man and evokes from him those qualities which make for independence in political work.
Another point is the value of the Indian Civil Service judges as an adjunct to the High Court. It is necessary to have a certain proportion because they have great experience of the country, the people, the value of evidence and the language. Therefore they have a much better understanding of the people of the country—I am not talking about the urban population—than any of the pleader and barrister judges. If they come out from home, not knowing a word of the language, they can never get into
real contact with the people of the country. The evidence has to be interpreted to them, and it is extraordinarily difficult to judge of the value and sincerity of a witness if his evidence has to be given through an interpreter. If you understand a man in his own language, you can tell much better whether he is a witness of truth or not.
We get all these advantages among the Indian Civil Service judges. You may ask any barrister Chief Justice of any High Court who is retired in England whether he wishes to have the contribution of the Indian Civil Service judges, and with one voice they will say, "Yes" Another way in which the Indian Civil Service judges are important is that they are the only people who ever inspect subordinate courts. They are selected by the Chief Justice to do all such inspections. In every High Court one of the Indian Civil Service judges is selected as an administrative judge, that is to say, he is the judge who, in the first place, deals with all the many administrative points which come before the Chief Justice. He is also the man who in the first place is 'called upon to select subordinate judges for promotion.
There is no need to change those conditions. I have never yet heard, although I have been in India for 40 years, and have studied these matters—I have been the Home Member in the Government of India dealing with the Calcutta High Court and with judges of other High Courts—that that system ever caused any inconvenience. The suggestion that it causes inconvenience comes from barristers who are making their living at the bar and who have sons and nephews who are doing the same. It is quite natural, and I am not blaming them, that they should catch at any argument to get rid of the Indian civil service judge. The examinations for pleaders are extremely stiff. We have all heard of the man who has sat for those examinations and has failed, and has then come straight away home and passed all the examinations for the English Bar. It would be nothing short of disaster if the Indian civil service judges did not contribute their quota to the High Courts and were not available to help in the burden of criminal work and on the administrative side of the court. These are matters in which the chief justice or any other barrister judge may not for the time
being have the materials or the knowledge necessary. The Indian civil service judges are likely to be as honest and impartial as any you can get in the matter of the promotion and appointment of the subordinate judiciary.
There is another point I want to stress, and that is that the district judges, who are mostly entirely Indian, and who preside in the Civil Courts, are not subject to any pecuniary limit of jurisdiction in the suits they try. Subordinate judges can take suits up to 5,000 or 10,000 rupees. District civil judges have specialised on civil cases. I am sure that every hon. and learned Member will appreciate that men who have been engaged all their lives in civil cases, whether as judges or as barristers on the civil side, are much less at home with the ordinary criminal case, and that considerable practice is necessary in the Indian criminal law to make a good criminal judge. It is a great advantage that a judge who is to preside at the Old Bailey should have experience at other sessions throughout the country. It is that great knowledge that we have in India which has resulted in the system of appointing men of experience in the work, men who have studied the country. Other judges are quite good enough for the ordinary civil work of the country, for work under the Contract Act, the Transfer of Property Act and other Acts which define the ordinary relations of members of the community towards one another, but they have not the same experience in relation to commercial and maritime questions, and complicated questions of Admiralty jurisdiction and so on.
I would therefore like to see the ordinary law remain as it is, with the ordinary courts of the judges, without specially permitting the civilian judge to be made chief justice, but as at present letting him act in short vacancies. He is never appointed a permanent chief justice, and I do not think the Indian Civil Service, after all these years, would have either a good case or would themselves wish for that new privilege. There is one limitation in respect of these judges, and that is that in the smaller Provinces the character of the litigation is not so complicated. We do not get maritime cases and complicated commercial cases there. Everything is comparatively simple. In such cases the court is presided over by
the Judicial Commissioner, or it may be by the Chief Judge of a chief court, as still exists in Oudh, and did until quite recently in Rangoon. It, has never been held necessary to have a barrister Chief Justice in these courts because the judicial commissioner fulfilled the functions of Chief Justice arid was a man selected as a rule from the Indian Civil Service. In many cases that I know personally these were men who occupied that position with as good a reputation for ability as many of the ordinary High Court judges.
I do not want to take up too much time talking about these judges, but I would ask the Government to consider the question of the statutory proportion. There is one argument which I introduced before and which I should like to have time to introduce again, and that is in regard to the proportion of the Indian Civil Service judges. The new recruits to the Indian Civil Service now have a reasonable hope of becoming High Court judges—I do not say certainty, because naturally the number of Indian Civil Service judges is greater than there are vacancies in the High Court, but if the inducements are reduced, the judicial side, being not nearly so attractive and far more sedentary than the executive side, it may become difficult to get men for that side. If that position arises, they are afraid of political pressure if there is no statutory protection as to the proportion. They themselves dread it, and they say that they will gradually be pushed out on one pretext or another unless they are protected with this statutory percentage. It would be very serious for us if we lost these experienced men, who bring a valuable contribution to the general wisdom and knowledge of the courts for the sake of altering a law which has long been in force, and which alteration will make very little difference in practice. The system has always worked conveniently and well, and was designed to give diversity to the various High Courts.
The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) has suggested a manuscript Amendment which it appears to me would meet any doubt that the Government may have as to the statutory percentage. It would leave scope for pleaders and subordinate judges who may be promoted. I have known a man
who was a Munsiff, a lower sub-ordinate judge, and who was promoted straight to the High Court bench. I am afraid that I have take up a long time, but I am asking the Government to reconsider the Clause in regard to the proportion of the several classes of judge, and to restore the present statutory limit, with the slight modification necessary. If the percentage comes to a fraction, you take the lowest whole number and adopt it.

7.43 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Two points have been raised in this discussion. The first is as to whether the Indian Civil Service judges should be eligible for the position of Chief Justice, and the second is as to the percentage rule which, under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), which we are now discussing, takes the barristers' third. I think a later Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) covers the Civil Service third as well as the barristers' third. It is the object of everybody in the Committee to make the best provision for ensuring that by their qualifications, their method of appointment, and the field which may be open, the best High Court may, be provided for the Provinces of India.
I will deal with these matters in the order in which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side dealt with them, but I would preface my remarks by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) for the extremely interesting manner in which he put before the Committee, much more authoritatively than I could, the actual legal work that is done by these civil servants. From the very outset of their career they are trying cases. They elect, in about four or five years from going out, whether they will or will not go on to the judicial side, and in about seven or eight years from going out to India, if they have opted for the judicial side, they will be either district judges or session judges, or performing the work of district or session judges.
The work that they do in that capacity is not, as my hon. and learned Friend the
Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) suggested, dealing merely with petty, small cases. They have complete power to deal with all kinds of cases, and they are practically in the position of High Court judges in this country. The High Court in India is really the Court of Appeal for nearly all purposes, and the work which these Indian civilians are doing in the eighth or ninth year of their service is really the work of a High Court judge. They are eligible now, and nobody suggests they should not be, for positions in the High Court, where, as I think the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) pointed out, their work has earned a well deserved tribute, in which everybody would join, from the Joint Select Committee, and it cannot be right to say that men who have devoted their lives to the administration of justice to the extent and in the way which I have described have not had legal training. In intention and effect you admit them to deal with and judge cases up to any amount and crimes of any degree of gravity, but under the present system you say to them, "You can sit in the High Court, but however well you do that, whatever aptitude you show, however you may in fact have shown the qualities which normally only come after practical work at the Bar, still you never can even be considered for the presiding position in one of these High Courts." We do not feel that it is right that there should be this statutory bar. It may be that the appointing authority will not be likely at any rate to select a Civil Service candidate to a chief justiceship, but both as a recognition of the work which they are being asked to do and also in order that the field may be open, so that if the best man really is a Civil Service judge he can be named, we think it is right to make this change.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I remind the hon. and learned Member that the opportunity for Indian civilians to become judges of the High Court will be very much restricted under Clause 243?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think that has anything to do with the point with which I was dealing. We do not think it right, in principle, that this bar should remain. On the other hand, of course, we do not contemplate that a Civil Service judge would normally be
selected for a chief justiceship. My right hon. Friend is certainly prepared to consider putting in a provision of this kind, that those described in paragraph (b) i.e., members of the Civil Service should not be eligible for a chief justiceship until after some period, say, three or four years, of service as judges of the High Court. That would ensure that they had had that experience, but that if, having that experience, they are, in the opinion of the appointing authority, the best men, the Crown would be free to give them that position. That deals with the first matter which my hon. and learned Friend and others have raised, and we feel it is right to make this change. I may also point out that, as the hon. Member for the English Universities said, in the Judicial Commissioners Court, which do exactly the same kind of work, this bar has never existed, and if the Amendment were accepted, or if we accepted the principle of ruling out the chief justiceship, the Bill, by turning these courts into High Courts, would preclude the Civil Service judges from presiding in courts where they at present in fact preside.
With regard to the second point, namely, the question of percentage, my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities, in giving us his Indian experience, said he had not come across any inconvenience caused by the percentage rule, but that is an inconvenience, I think I can convince him, which has been felt, and felt increasingly, in recent years; and the nature of it is clear. If you have a fixed percentage for certain members of a court, it very much restricts your choice when a fresh appointment has to be made, and there is this further undesirable rigidity, that if one, say, of your third of barristers retires or dies, you have to fill up his place with someone of the same category. It may be that you have an unusually large number of men of a certain standing among the Indian Civil Service ranks, and you want to take the opportunity of getting the right man, but you cannot do it because this percentage rule hampers you, in that you have to replace the man who has died or retired by a man of the same class.
There are other reasons against the percentage rule. If you took the existing statutory provision of a third barristers, a third Indian civil servants,
and so on, you would have to add the Indian pleaders. Why should not they have their percentage? They are as much entitled to it as anyone else, but if you did that, you would have to increase the aggregate. They may be something to be said for something of that kind, but it could not be right to take one of the interested groups, if I may use the term without offence, and to give them a statutory safeguard, while leaving everybody else at the mercy of the appointing authority. Therefore, dealing at first with my hon. Friend's proposal, I say that it could not be accepted because it is one-sided. If you make a percentage, as the Noble Lady suggests, that has given rise to great administrative inconvenience, and when the scheme is definitely rigid, whenever one category drops out, you have to appoint someone of the same category.

Duchess of ATHOLL: But it meets the. difficulty which arises when your total number of judges is not a multiple of three.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the Noble Lady's Amendment meets that point, but the great objection to it is its rigidity. There is a table showing exactly how many judges must be barristers, how many pleaders, and how many Indian civilians in courts of all possible numbers, and I am sure it cannot be right to hamper the appointing authority in that way. In conclusion, may say that, after all, the real safeguard for proper appointments is the nature of the appointing authority. Whatever qualifications are laid down in the Bill, unless the appointing authority exercises its duties with a sense of responsibility, and with care, you will not get good men. If it does exercise its duties with a sense of responsibility, courage and independence of mind, you will get the best. We have provided in this Bill that these appointments are to be by the Crown, and we think it is impossible to over-emphasise the importance of that provision, having regard to the matter which we are now considering, because that matter is whether the best appointments are going to be made to the office of chief justice, whether a proper proportion of barristers are going to be appointed to the Indian courts, and whether a proper proportion of civil ser-
vants are going to be appointed to the courts. These will be the duties of the appointing authority, and, having made that provision, we have no fear that these duties will not be properly and responsibly exercised. We think that the changes we propose are right and proper.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask a question? The Crown must, of course, have nominations made to it. Will those nominations be made by the Minister, or

will they be put forward by the Governor acting in his discretion?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think there is anything to fetter the Secretary of State in making inquiries from the Governor-General, the Governor, or anybody he thinks proper. I think it is a. perfectly unfettered duty.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 220.

Division No.136.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Alexander, Sir William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, William P. C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Spens, William Patrick


Bernays, Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Bracken, Brendan
Hartington, Marquess of
Templeton, William P.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Burnett, John George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courtauid, Major John Sewell
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wayland, Sir William A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Lees-Jones, John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Donner, P. W.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Doran, Edward
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Wise, Alfred R.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander



Fleming, Edward Lascelies
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Bailey and Mr. Emmott.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Grimston, R. V.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cleary, J. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cook, Thomas A.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooke, Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harbord, Arthur


Assheton, Ralph
Crooke, J. Smedley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Daggar, George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hornby, Frank


Banfield, John William
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Davies, Stephen Owen
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Blindell, James
Dickle, John P.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Boulton, W.W.
Dobble, William
Jamieson, Douglas


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jenkins, Sir William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E.W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
John, William


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Eastwood, John Francis
Ker, J. Campbell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, David


Burghley, Lord
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Butler, Richard Austen
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lawson, John James


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Leonard, William


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lewis, Oswald


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilliett, Sir George Masterman
Liddall, Walter S.


Cassels, James Dale
Gower, Sir Robert
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Loftus, Pierce C.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Grenfell, David Rees (Giamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Christle, James, Archibald
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Strauss, Edward A.


McEntee, Valentine L.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Strickland, Captain W.F.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Summers by, Charles H.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thompson, Sir Luke


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rickards, George William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Magnay, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thorne, William James


Mainwaring, William Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Tinker, John Joseph


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Train, John


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Salt, Edward W.
Tree, Ronald


Maxton, James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sandys, Duncan
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)


Milne, Charles
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Milner, Major James
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shute, Colonel Sir John
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Warrender, Sir Victor A.G.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeous


Munro, Patrick
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
White, Henry Graham


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Soper, Richard
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Paling, Wilfred
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Palmer, Francis Noel
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Parkinson, John Allen
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)



Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pearson, William G.
Stevenson, James
Sir George Penny and Major


Petherick, M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
George Davies.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stones, James

Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 118, line 17, at the end to insert:
(4) Provided that not less than one-third of the judges of a High Court, including the Chief Justice but excluding additional judges, must be suet barristers or advocates as aforesaid and that not

less than one-third must be members of the Indian Civil Service."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 215.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Sandys, Duncan


Alexander, Sir William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Spens, William Patrick


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Greene, William P. C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Atholl, Duchess of
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Templeton, William P.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hartington, Marquess of
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Bracken, Brendan
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Broadbent, Colonel John
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Burnett, John George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lees-Jones, John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Crevdon, S.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Wise, Alfred R.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander



Donner, P. W.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Mr. Bailey and Mr. Emmott.


Fleming, Edward Lasceiles
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard.



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-spring)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Christie, James Archibald


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cleary, J. J.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Assheton, Ralph
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major William Philip


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cook, Thomas A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cooke, Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Banfield, John William
Butler, Richard Austen
Crooke, J. Smedley


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Batey, Joseph
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dagger, George


Bernays, Robert
Cassels, James Dale
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Blindell, James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dickie, John P.
Lawson, John James
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dobble, William
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salt, Edward W.


Doran, Edward
Leonard, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dunglass, Lord
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Eastwood, John Francis
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Soper, Richard


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McKie, John Hamilton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mainwaring, William Henry
Stevenson, James


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Martin, Thomas B.
Stones, James


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James.
Strickland, Captain W.F.


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Summersby, Charles H.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milne, Charles
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mliner, Major James
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thorne, William James


Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Tinker, John Joseph


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Munro, Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Train, John


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tree, Ronald


Hornby, Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Horsbrugh, Florence
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Paling, Wilfred
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Parkinson, John Allen
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Patrick, Colin M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
White, Henry Graham


Jamieson, Douglas
Petherick, M.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jenkins, Sir William
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


John, William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ker, J. Campbell
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rickards, George William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Major George Davies and Dr.


Kirkwood, David
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Morris-Jones.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 211 and 212 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 213.—(Jurisdiction of existing High Courts.)

8.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 119, line 28, after the first "Act," to insert
to the provisions of any Order in Council made under this or any other Act.
It is necessary to put in these words because there may be Orders in Council either under this Act or under such an Act as the Foreign Jurisdiction Act which will affect the jurisdiction.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper

In Clause 213, page 119, line 37, at the end, to insert;
Provided that any provision of any Act of a Provincial Legislature which derogates from or reduces the Dowers and jurisdiction of any High Court shall be void and of no effect."—[Mr. Thorp.]
In Clause 218, page 121, line 22, at the end, to add:
(3) No law affecting the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the High Courts shall be introduced into any legislature without the prior assent of—

(i) in the case of alterations affecting the Letters Patent, the Secretary of State;
(ii) in the case of other matters, the Governor-General."—[Mr. C. Ker.]

8.22 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) to move his Amendment, may I mention to the Committee that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) has agreed to my proposal that his Amendment would be better brought up immediately after that of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne, and that the two Amendments should be discussed together? I mention this to the Committee so that they may realise that the two Amendments will be discussed as one, and a separate Division taken, if necessary, on the second Amendment. This will merely involve, in the case of the second Amendment, striking out the "(3)" and inserting the words "Provided that," so that the Amendment would read, "Provided that no law" and so on.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 119, line 37, at the end, to insert;
Provided that any provision of any Act of a Provincial Legislature which derogates from or reduces the powers and jurisdiction of any High Court shall be void and of no effect.
I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee at any length, but, having secured immunity for the High Court, and realising that the High Court may have to stand as the protagonist of the rights of the subject, it seems advisable to see that any legislation which is passed by any provincial legislature shall not have the effect of rendering nugatory the protection given by the Bill to the judges of the High Court, in order that they may protect the person who has had recourse to them. The object of my Amendment is that not only the spirit, but also the letter, of the immunity of the High Court should be borne carefully in mind, and that no attempt should be made with any success by any provincial legislature so to alter the law as to oust-the jurisdiction of the High Court. The powers of the provincial legislatures are laid down, and they should, no doubt, adhere strictly to those powers, but they might, by ingenious draftsmanship, succeed in eliminating from the High Court any power to interfere or to protect subjects who have recourse to the High Court. In these circumstances it seems to me
that it would be well to place on record, in the form of words which I am proposing to insert, that a provincial legislature shall have no power whatever to pass any Act which would have the effect of derogating from or diminishing in any way the powers of the High Court

8.25 p.m.

Mr. CAMPBELL KER: In accordance with your Ruling, Sir Dennis, I should like to say a few words about the Amendment which I have tabled to Clause 218, and which appears to come better in 'Clause 213. The Amendment is slightly wider than that which has been proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, and also is not quite as drastic. It refers to the introduction of any amendment to any legislature, whereas the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend refers only to a provincial legislature. On the other hand, it is not quite as drastic, because it provides that amendments can be moved with the prior assent of the Secretary of State or the Governor-General. I do not attach any great importance to the wording of my Amendment because the Governor-General acting in these matters is practically the same authority as the Secretary of State, and I should be quite content, if the Government agreed, that these laws should not be introduced without the prior assent of the Governor-General. It might be held that the position of the Letters Patent is covered by the Instrument of Instructions to the Governors and the Governor-General, but it appears to me that the instrument for this purpose is rather a heavy instrument because the Governor or the Governor-General is not even to interfere unless the amendments derogate from the powers of the High Courts in such a way as to endanger their position.
The Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper would cover minor changes in the law not so serious in nature as to warrant the Governor or Governor-General in interfering. The words "jurisdiction, powers, and authority" and so on are used here, not in any wide sense, because any amendment of the law affects the jurisdiction of the courts in some way or other, but the word "jurisdiction" is used in the rather narrow sense of competence to try cases and persons, and as it is used, as I
understand it to be used, in the Seventh Schedule where the items provide for amendments of the jurisdiction of the High Courts. Most of this "jurisdiction, powers, and authority" is covered by the Letters Patent which were passed in 1865, and have been subject to amendment by the Governor-General in Council since 1865, but only by the Governor-General in Council and not by Provincial Legislatures. I would remind the Committee that the Governor-General in Council in 1865 was a very different authority from the Governor-General in Council being set up to-day. The new Federal Legislature is a very different thing from the Council of the Governor-General in 1865. At that time the Governor-General had from six to 12 members in his Parliament, all of whom were nominated, and besides them h, had five members of his own Executive Council, so that no law was likely to be passed in those days contrary to the wishes of the Government. The position now is entirely different.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who will reply how the position stands in the Bill with regard to Letters Patent; first of all, whether they can be amended by the Federal Legislature and whether they can be amended by the Provincial Legislature, and, if the latter be the intention, what are the reasons for introducing this innovation in the law? At the present moment the Letters Patent can only be amended by the Governor-General in Council, that is to say, by the Central Government. If it is proposed in the Bill to make these Letters Patent subject to amendment, by Provincial Legislatures, it is a new point and an innovation in the law which requires some explanation. My Amendment is not so drastic as that which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend in that it simply provides for the previous assent of the Governor-General before any such amendment can be proposed, and the object which we both have in view, and which, I think, is secured by my Amendment, is to maintain the prestige and dignity of the High Courts in India and Keep them in the same position in the public mind as that which they have occupied since they were first introduced.

8.31 p. m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Both these Amendments deal 'with a matter of very great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) made a plea that his Amendment is less drastic than that moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), but, on the other hand, it is much more comprehensive and covers much more ground, because it would not allow the Federal Legislature to restrict the jurisdiction of the Provincial High Court without the previous sanction either of the Secretary of State or of the Governor-General, whereas the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne would only prohibit the Provincial Legislature from restricting that jurisdiction. If hon. Members will look at the Seventh Schedule they will see that this so-called drastic Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend will still enable the Federal Legislature to exercise restriction with regard to every matter in the federal list and in the concurrent list, so that that leaves a very wide field out of account. However, both Amendments deal with something of very great importance, and that is the power that the Bill would give to a Provincial Legislature to restrict High Court jurisdiction.
It has been pointed out to me by someone who has been a judge in a High Court that one of the first matters on the list that could be removed by a Provincial Legislature from the jurisdiction of the High Court is everything that has to do with public order and the police—indeed everything that comes into the first item in the provincial list. That means, as this ex-judge pointed out to me, that a Provincial Legislature could remove from the jurisdiction of the High Court all proceedings arising out of any form of public disorder; Civil disobedience, the red shirt movement, communal riots and everything of that kind might be removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, both these Amendments seem to be of extreme importance; otherwise, I should not have ventured to trouble the Committee with another speech, because I am aware that I have already trespassed on its time this afternoon.
It has also been said to me that attempts have already been made in some Provinces to restrict the jurisdiction of
the High Court. An instance was given to me where the Provincial Legislature had been trying to create a city court in a presidency town in order to take away from the High Court the jurisdiction in regard to matters in the city. We have to remember the large number of men there are in India with legal training who are looking for work. There is, therefore, a temptation to many people to work for the creation of new courts and possibly, therefore, to limit the jurisdiction of existing courts. Another very important subject that may be removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court by the Provincial Legislature is anything to do with water disputes and water rights. An ex-judge of the High Court told me that nothing causes more frequent murders than disputes about water rights. Yet it may be within the power of the Provincial Legislature to remove these subjects from the jurisdiction of the High Court. These are points of great importance to the welfare of the people of India and for the general preservation of order which are raised by the Amendments, and I would ask the Government very carefully to consider whether they cannot accept one or other of them.

8.36 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The two Amendments raise the same sort of point but in different forms, and I am sorry to say that I cannot admit that either of them are Amendments that can be properly made within the scheme of the Bill. The scheme provides that the Provincial Legislatures shall have competence to legislate in respect of the jurisdiction of the High Court on any matters in connection with which they may pass legislation. It will be seen at once how important it is that if the Provincial Legislature is to have power to legislate upon any particular matter it shall also have the power to legislate in respect of the necessary jurisdiction of the High Court as being connected with that matter. My Noble Friend has suggested some ways in which legislation might be passed by the Provincial Legislature derogating from the jurisdiction of the High Court. I am informed that, judging from present day and past experience, the tendency has been and would be in the future in exactly the opposite direction. The inclinations of the Legislatures have been to increase the
jurisdiction of the High Court and not to diminish it or derogate from it.
The reason that I would mention as the one which makes it impossible to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) is that his Amendment makes it impossible for the Provincial Legislature to derogate from the jurisdiction of the High Court. That would really mean that the Federal Legislature would have to come in and legislate in respect of jurisdiction to deal with that which had been made the subject of legislation in the Provincial Legislature, and you would get an inextricable tangle between the two, or you might easily get such a tangle. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) is not so obviously open to the same objection, but the same objection does really apply when one considers it. His proposal in Clause 218 is that no law shall be introduced with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Courts without the prior assent in the case of alterations affecting the Letters Patent, of the Secrtary of State, or in the case of other matters, of the Governor-General. The logical conclusion is that if these assents were withheld in any particular case legislation by the. Provincial Legislature would be impossible. Then we should get the same position as that which would be reached if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the. Member for Nelson and Colne was adopted.
The Government regard that as impracticable, but I hope it will be some satisfaction to my hon. Friends to appreciate that the matter has not been overlooked. In spite of what I have said as to the probable tendencies being in the direction of increasing the jurisdiction of the High Court, rather than diminishing it, provision has been made in the Instrument of Instruction by which any legislation derogating from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger the position which that Court is by such Act designed to fill, is to be sent by the Governor for the consideration of the Governor-General. That would give the most ample safeguards against the possibilities suggested by my noble Friend who last spoke. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that the safeguard which will be inserted in the Instrument of Instruction will prevent them from feel
ing any fears as to the jurisdiction of the High Court being tampered with by the Provincial Legislatures.

Mr. THORP: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. C. Ker) does not wish to move his Amendment?

Mr. CAMPBELL KER: No.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 214.—(Administrative functions of High Courts.)

8.44 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 120, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(b) direct the transfer of any suit or appeal from any such course to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction.
The Clause as it stands enables the High Court to call for returns, to make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts, to prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept, and to settle tables of fees. The Amendment which I wish to insert may be compared to the English procedure of certiorari, whereby if a superior court has any reason to believe that a case which is being dealt with in an inferior court could better be dealt with in a superior court it may issue what we know as a writ of certiorari, to bring that action up into the Higher Court in order that justice may be done. The new paragraph which I propose may be compared to affording the machinery to the High Court to give effect to the control, which the rest of the Clause rather connotes, which the High Court should have over subordinate courts. In this respect may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, if he has any specific reason, why these words which appear in the Government of India Act, Section 107, have been omitted from this Bill?
In Section 107 of the 1915 Act, these words have been found to work satisfactorily. If these powers were necessary to be given to the High Court in those days, why are they omitted from a similar Clause in this Bill? There should be machinery by which the High
Court, if they are dissatisfied with what is going on in any case in an inferior court, should have the power to say that the case must come up for adjudication to the High Court or be transferred to some other court where it would be more satisfactorily disposed of. I would compare by way of an analogy, which may be rather forced, the jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division in this country, which by means of certiorari is able to overlook and control and make subordinate courts behave themselves in cases where they are not behaving quite satisfactorily. When we have a procedure by which the High Court here can if it be necessary, by writs of certiorari, control subordinate courts in this country, then a fortiori the High Court in India should have power to control subordinate courts in India.

8.47 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member is perfectly right in saying that similar words appear in Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. He asks why these words have been omitted from the Bill. The answer is that in practice it has been found that there is ample provision for what he contemplates in the Criminal Civil Code. That would afford an answer to his Amendment if I were disposed not to accept it. But the insertion of the words can do no harm and, therefore, I am glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 215 to 218 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 219.—(Extra provincial jurisdiction of High Courts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I should like to ask the learned Attorney-General to explain the meaning of Subsection (3).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Clause reduces substantially Section 109 of the existing Act. It provides that where the High Court exercises jurisdiction in relation to an area outside the Province in which it has its principal seat, then the Bill shall not be interpreted as empowering the Legislature of that
Province to increase or restrict the jurisdiction of the court, or prevent the Legislature from having power to make laws for that area. The Legislature having power to make laws for the area can pass laws in regard to the jurisdiction of the court. The Clause ensures that the arrangement now in force in Bengal and Assam shall not be terminated except, say, on the initiative of the Assam Government.

Clauses 220 to 222 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 223.—(Eligibility for commissions in Indian, Forces.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.52 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: I should like to ask what this Clause means. It says that His Majesty is to have power to grant commissions in any naval, military or air forces raised in India to any person who might be or has been lawfully enlisted or enrolled in that force. That seems to be the natural prerogative of the Crown. Is there any hidden reason why the Clause is inserted?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Clause has to be read with Clause 8, which says that the executive authority of the Federation;
does not extend to the enlistment or enrolment in any forces raised in India of any person unless he is either a subject of His Majesty or a native of India or of territories adjacent to India";
This Clause relates to the Defence Services, and makes it clear that His Majesty can grant commissions in the Indian Forces to subjects of Indian States or natives of territories adjacent to India. Commissions can be given to such excellent members of the Indian Army as the Nepalese.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it the object to grant commissions to members of the Army who have served in Indian regiments over the natives of India?

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member will remember that there are portions of His Majesty's forces in India which are recruited in territories adjacent to India. The most remarkable of these
come from the territories on the Nepalese border. This applies to such persons as are recruited in the forces in India.

Sir H. CROFT: My hon. and gallant Friend is inquiring whether a Nepalese officer could be granted a commission to command other Indians in other Indian regiments.

Sir A. KNOX: Would a Gurkha officer be put in command of a Sikh regiment?

Mr. BUTLER: That is a question for the administration of the Indian Army, and I should not be in order in referring to it now. The Clause would enable Gurkhas to be given commissions in the Indian Army; and there are no more valuable members of the Indian Army.

CLAUSE 224.—(Control of Secretary of State with respect to conditions of service.)

8.55 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: I beg to move, in page 123, line 16, after "may," to insert:
acting with the concurrence of a majority of his advisers.
The object of this Amendment is to limit the dictatorial powers of the Secretary of State. We shall have various Secretaries of State in the years to come, and I think it would be an advantage if they could give their decisions regarding rules for the Indian Army with the concurrence of their advisers. There is a truism that "If a murder is committed, better it should be committed in daylight than dark." There are a certain number of people, at present Indian army officers, who are more likely to get justice if decisions regarding rules affecting the Indian Army were made by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of his advisers.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member means by reference to murder.

Sir A. KNOX: I mean that some regulations or rules might be made which would be very disadvantageous for officers in the Indian Army, and there is less chance of such rules being made if the Secretary of State acted in concurrence with his advisers. It seems quite plain.

Sir S. HOARE: Even so, I do not see the application of my hon. and gallant
Friend's simile. Be that as it may, I am not myself clear that the Indian Army itself wants this proposal. I am ready to insert the Amendment in the Bill, but I have had no evidence of such a desire. If the Indian Army wants it I am ready to insert it. Has my hon. and gallant Friend any knowledge about the feeling of the Indian Army on the subject?

Sir A. KNOX: It is quite impossible for me to say. I am not in a position to say, but as an ex-officer of the Indian Army I should have thought it was the sort of thing they would like. If I was still serving it is what I would like.

Mr. ATTLEE: One is rather in a difficulty about this Amendment, because one does not know who the advisers would be. I cannot see the point of the Amendment. I gather from the Mover that it is an advantage when murdered if there are several accessories before the fact.

Mr. DONNER: As the Secretary of State says he has no objection to the Amendment, will he consider it again before Report

8.59 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: This Bill involves possibly very considerable change in the rules and regulations affecting the Indian Army, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment was probably speaking with the sympathy of a great many. I have had two or three gentlemen who have served in the Army and have referred this matter to me. Their view is that it would be safer, not necessarily with the present Secretary of State but with some future Secretary of State, that any changes in the rules should be made with the concurrence of his advisers. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter before the Report stage?

Sir A. KNOX: At the present time there is an India Council at the India Office, but it is being done away with and the Secretary of State has his advisers to take the place of the India Council.

9.0 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I do not wish at all to oppose an Amendment of this kind, but I protest against the way in which it has been moved. It is quite unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make the kind of charges that he made
in connection with it. I think he would better expedite our proceedings if he did not make charges of that kind. After what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has said, I am quite ready to accept the Amendment.

Sir A. KNOX: I would like an explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I did not make any charge. I merely made a semi-jocular remark about "If a murder is committed." Injustices do take place. It is our duty to see that injustices do not take place.

Sir S. HOARE: All I can say is that I cannot congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his sense of humour.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 225 to 228 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 229.—(Tenure of office of persons employed in civil capacities in India.)

9.2 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 124, line 23, to leave out from "rank," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Seventeenth Schedule to this Act.
The object of this Amendment is one to which very considerable importance is attached, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept it. Associated with it there will be found on page 1298 of the Order Paper a new Schedule standing in my name and that of my friends, the whole purpose of which is to carry out to the full extent rule 55 of the "Civil Service, Classification, Control and Appeal." I would briefly refer to the words of these rules as corrected up to 1st September, 1935. The three points in the rules which I hope will be included refer to the right of an officer to an inquiry, the formulation of grounds of dismissal in writing and the cross-examination of witnesses. These words actually occur in the rules, though in somewhat different order. On page 14 of the rule referred to, these words occur:
If he so desires or if the authority concerned shall direct, an oral inquiry shall be held.
On page 13 of the rules we read
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed on a member of the Civil Service unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds upon which it is proposed to take action.
Then on page 14 he is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. It would have been a cumbersome Amendment if we had attempted to embrace those words here.

9.5 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: The proposed Schedule to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers consists of part of the rules known as the classification rules. These rules are very long and complicated. Hitherto they have been drawn up by the Secretary of State acting with his council, that council being, as the Committee will remember, definitely charged with the duty of watching over the interests of the services. It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have similar advisers in future and that it should be the duty of those advisers to watch over the safeguards necessary for the services just as the present council does. There will therefore continue to be the same safeguard as that which exists now, namely, the Secretary of State, acting in this case with the majority of his advisers.
The question then arises whether, in view of that fact, it is necessary to put part of these rules either into the Statute itself or into a Schedule. I suggest to the Committee that it is not necessary and that there is a good deal of objection to putting into a Schedule a part of these classification rules. There are several other rules just as important as this. In any case they are very voluminous, and to put them into the Bill would mean tying up a number of service conditions, some important and some not important, with statutory red tape and making it impossible to change them at all without an amending Act. I suggest that that would be to go too far. I submit that in the first place the safeguard of the Secretary of State, acting with his advisers, is sufficient, and, secondly, that we have already in Clause 229 met one of the chief points urged by my hon. and gallant Friend. If he will look at that Clause he will see set out explicitly in statutory form the rights which the ser-
vices have in these matters. I suggest to him, particularly in view of Sub-section (3) and the safeguard which I have already mentioned, it is unnecessary to 'add a Schedule of this kind. There is also the serious objection of including details of this kind, with the result that they can only be altered in future by amending Acts.

9.9 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for the courteous way in which he has answered my proposal. Sub-section (3) to which he has referred provides:
No such person … shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to ho taken.
"Reasonable opportunity" is not very definite and although it would be absurd to suggest that all these various rules should be embraced in the Statute I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the particular points referred to in my proposed Schedule are of great importance. If these words could be included it would give a feeling of confidence to the people concerned. I think I am entitled to mention, as an instance, the kind of cases which a during the War. In cases where there was some criticim of an officer these points were regarded as vital and I think the Civil Service in India would be better satisfied if they knew that the three main points dealt with in the Schedule were included.
In the circumstances contemplated in the Bill when we are setting up this new machinery it seems to me that any person who is in trouble should have the opportunity of receiving a formulation in writing of the grounds of his dismissal and should be allowed the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses. There have been some critical cases in India in the past and, as I say, great importance is attached to the three main heads dealt with in the proposed Schedule. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me some encouragement to believe that he will look into the question further. I know it is a subject on which many civil servants feel very keenly. They are not able to express their views but one learns privately that this proposal if accepted, would give a greater feeling of confidence to gentlemen whose careers may be at
stake under the new regime than they now have.

9.12 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I necessarily approach a proposition of this kind with great sympathy but again I say to my hon. and gallant Friend that I do not believe it to be necessary. First, the Sub-section I have mentioned to a great extent covers the point. Second the proposed Schedule would add nothing to the security of the Secretary of State having to give his approval to any change in the rules. Thirdly, this is only one of many other important rules. There are rules with reference to the right of appeal just as important as this one. Fourthly, this proposed Schedule itself does not appear to be the kind of watertight safeguard which my hon. and gallant Friend imagines because in the last paragraph it says that exceptions may be made in carrying it out. For those reasons, I think it better to keep the rules in the hands of the Secretary of State and his advisers. What I will do is to look into the paragraphs about the Public Service Commission to see if we could introduce there some reference which would ensure a proper bearing being given to a case before the case actually comes to the Secretary of State. I will look into the matter from that aspect but I do not think it would be a good plan to attach this Schedule to the Bill.

9.14 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is still prepared to give some consideration to this point and I would ask him whether this Clause could not be slightly expanded so as to include a reference to Rule 55 on these particular heads. I am familiar with the rules of the Government of India and of the Provincial Government dealing with what are called departmental inquiries into the alleged shortcomings of Government servants, however humble they may be. It is most desirable that nothing should be left vague. One of the most important of these instructions is that specific charges must be brought against a person against whom complaint is made. The opportunity of giving an answer in writing or orally to specific charges is a prime con-
sideration of departmental inquiries, so that if we are to have the provisions contained in Clause 229 this particular Sub-section, at all events, should be included, unless you follow the practice which was followed in the case of the White Paper of putting all the rights into a schedule or a list. That has not been done here. In some respects, it might have been more satisfactory if it had been done, because otherwise it will take a man a long time to fathom out what his rights are. It is not a thing which he can keep in his head, and the next time he wants to look up his rights he will have to go through the list again. There is a good deal to be said for putting the principal rights in a schedule, but if that is not considered suitable the essential points should be included in the Clause.

Sir H. CROFT: Suppose some future Secretary of State decided to alter these rules, there would appear to be nothing to prevent him. The trouble is that this is a changing world, and that while we may feel happy and contented to-day about the rules, the rules might be varied in future.

9.17 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: This is a changing world and we have changing Governments. They make many Acts, just as changing Secretaries of State may have different policies. There has, however, been a great continuity of policy in the Services question, and I think that one of the safeguards is that the Secretary of State will not be able to act without his advisers in a question of this kind. It is intended that the Services shall be represented among the Secretary of State's advisers and shall be there to watch over points of this kind. However, I will look into what both my hon. Friends have said to see whether it will be possible to put anything more into the body of the Bill. I will look into it sympathetically, but I am against the Schedule.

Sir H. CROFT: In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 230.—(Recruitment and conditions of service.)

9.20 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in page 125, line 17, after "Governor General," to insert:
in the exercise of his individual judgment.
The Committee will realise that Clause 230 deals with the recruitment and conditions of service, and the opening Subsection provides:
Except as expressly provided by this Act, appointments to the civil services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India, shall, after the commencement of Part III of this Act, be made—
(a) in the case of services of the Federation, and posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation, by the Governor-General or such person as he may direct.
The purpose of the Amendment is, after the word "Governor-General," to add the words "in the exercise of his individual judgment." It has been a little difficult in the past discussions on this Bill to arrive at any very definite information as to the meaning of the words in the exercise of his individual judgment," but, as far as we can make anything of the various statements that have been made, we on these benches have arrived at a certain conclusion. It is that where the words "in his discretion" are used there is no obligation for the Governor-General to consult anyone. Where, as in Clause 230, nothing is said, it is assumed that not only will the Governor-General consult his Ministers, but that he must accept what his Ministers advise. If, however, this Amendment is inserted, there will be an obligation on the Governor-General to consult his Ministers, but he need not take their advice. We hold strongly to the view that this Clause will be immensely strengthened if these words are added. The Services to which reference is made are those Services the recruitment of which lies in the hands of the Governor-General, and not in the hands of the Secretary of State. They are, in fact, the Services other than those enumerated in Clause 233.
I am anxious not to revive in any detail the charge that is frequently and often properly made as to Oriental nepotism and corruption, but there is every expectation that under this new Constitution those time-honoured practices, which
are very frequent even under the present Constitution, will flourish exceedingly. We feel that if these words are added and there is only an obligation for the Governor-General to consult his Ministers but not to accept their decision, there will be far less opportunity for corrupt patronage and nepotism. Although we oppose the Bill fundamentally, we are anxious that it should work if, as seems likely, it is placed on the Statute Book, and we want to minimise to the greatest extent the possibility of the Constitution being brought into disrepute, and the whole intention of Parliament being neutralised by these practices being encouraged. We feel that if the Amendment is accepted there will be an opportunity for the Governor-General, and, if the next Amendment is accepted, for the provincial Governor, to safeguard his officials from the enmity of ministers. It has frequently been advanced on behalf of those who support this Bill that with the measure of responsibility that is being given there will come a realisation on the part of the Indian ministers of their responsibilities, and we believe that in this particular situation they will focus their indignation on the Governor-General and on the Governor in the Province if he is not safeguarded in the way that we propose he should be safe guarded.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member has made clear the intention of this Clause, which applies to the appointments to the Civil Service in the case of the particular services of the Federation, which are known as the Central Services, and which comprise such services as the railways, Indian post and telegraphs, Imperial Customs, and similar services. The second Amendment applies to Provincial Services, which are under the Provincial Governors and which conduct some of the affairs of the Provincial Governments. The hon. Member desires that in every case of appointments to the Services I have mentioned we should go back on the present practice and that the Governor-General should be brought in in his individual judgment. The hon. Member, therefore, means and desires that we shall bring in the Governor-General in the ease of the Central Services, and in the case of Provincial Services the Governor, for the appoint
ment in every case I have mentioned. We consider that would be going too far. These particular services are those which are, in the case of the Federation, under the future Federal Government, and, in the case of the Provinces, under the Provincial Government. They have been in the case of the Provincial Government transferred for some time, and it would seem to be rather excessive caution, and would impose an excessive burden on the Governor-General and the Governor, to insist that they should be brought into every appointment. In addition, this would imply distrust in the Federal and Provincial Governments in the future, if it was considered in these particular circumstances that they were unable to make the proper appointment. It is for these reasons I regret very much that we are unable to accept the Amendment, although I see its point.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I do not think the Under-Secretary sufficiently realises the significance of the Amendment. According to paragraph (a), which deals with the affairs of the Federation, if the Amendment is carried in the exercise of his individual judgment the Governor-General is enabled to do this, by "such person as he may direct." Therefore, it is not necessary, as the Under-Secretary suggests, if this Amendment is carried for the Governor-General personally to carry through all appointments. I am not satisfied that the drafting is complete. Not being a lawyer, I am not quite certain about the words, but I am clear about their intention. The Under-Secretary made his reply on the assumption that on every one of these jobs he would personally have to go through the qualifications of every individual. He entirely overlooked the other words, "or such person as he may direct." These other persons would be directed, by the Governor-General and not by ministers. Therefore, the argument is not in the least met by the Under-Secretary, who bases the whole of his reply on the fact that it would be imposing an intolerable burden of work on the Governor-General, who is perfectly well able to say to some persons, "I appoint you to make this class of appointment. In the case of appointments above that, you will refer them to
me for my personal direction." This is no answer to the Amendment, and, quite clearly, the words already in the Bill have been overlooked.

9.30 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the Amendment requires more consideration than the Under-Secretary has given to it. We have to remember in the matter of these appointments for how much community and caste count, and the pressure to which ministers may be subjected on this ground in regard to appointments. It is just in regard to the type of appointments described here that there is this pressure. It is just in regard to the Central or Provincial services that I understand there is apt to be so much pressure, particularly in the lower grades. It has been said to me, both by Indians and British, how much ministers may be apt to do in the way of getting friends appointed to services, particularly Provincial services. It has been said that there can be a sort of paralysis among the men serving from fear of being pushed out of their posts or done out of promotion, because the minister seeks appointments for his friends. Indian members of the service are even expected to help ministers in finding posts. Many Indian members of the services entertain great fears of serving under ministers, because their posts might depend on whether a minister wanted posts for his friends. I do not think it is a thing that can be dismissed lightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said the Governor may waive his powers in the case of a minister in whom he has confidence. I may remind the Committee that the Joint Select Committee were very anxious that canvassing for promotion or appointments should disqualify candidates and they suggested that for postings or promotion in the higher grades there should be the personal concurrence of the Governor. This Amendment is moved on the authority of the Joint Select Committee, and I feel I must support it.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wonder if we cannot come to a compromise. It does seem as if the Under-Secretary has spoken a little hastily. After all, the Governor-General has full powers. All such persons as he may direct may supervise appointments for the post office or
railway, such as the ministers in charge. It does enable the Governor-General, if necessary, to cover himself, yet this was the whole of the case on the basis of which lay the objections of the Under-Secretary. I certainly would not support the Amendment if it meant going back on the present position. I do say that if words of this kind somewhere near the Amendment can be put in, the Governor-General might easily be able to make the appointments in that way without having to exercise special powers. Quite frankly, I do not like the idea of the Governor-General having to exercise special powers very often. It does seem that some Amendment of this kind might be inserted on the Report stage of the Bill, which would enable the Governor-General to make particular appointments if he thought it necessary. I simply put it from that point of view because I am sure that we want some safeguard here, and I am equally certain that we do not want to go back on the present position. The Clause as it stands, even with this Amendment, would undoubtedly mean that the Governor-General could transfer whole blocks of appointments to a Minister, which is what is wanted, but I think we ought to put in the Bill some words which will give him a reserved position. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he will consider the point carefully to see whether it is not possible to put in some safeguard.

9.36 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE: I am quite sure that this Amendment either goes much too far, or is not any good at all. It goes much too far in making the Governor-General and the Governor personally responsible not only for innumerable appointments but also for all the dismissals. If it had a wide scope it would mean that the Governor-General and the Governor would be doing little or nothing except dealing with individual cases, and, moreover, cases connected with Departments which have already been transferred. If, on the other hand, the last words in paragraph (a) of Clause 230 are to have a wide intention, it would mean that he would delegate his powers to somebody else, and the Amendment therefore would have no effective result at all, or little or no effective result. In
any case I suggest that it is unnecessary to have any provision of this kind. The Governor-General and the Governor are the heads of the public services, and the public services are the services of the Crown and not of the local Governments, just as they are the services of the Crown here; but that does not mean that the Governor-General and the Governor are personally responsible for all these appointments, without any ministerial responsibility at all in. wide fields of government which have already been transferred.
So far as the reserved Departments are concerned, the question does not arise. So far as the Secretary of State's services are concerned there are all the various safeguards connected with the Secretary of State's services. So far as the transferred Departments are concerned, it would be a great mistake, after these Departments have been transferred for many years, to attempt to withdraw responsibility from the Ministers at a time when we are trying to increase the field of responsibility generally in India. In these latter cases there will be, first, the safeguard of the Public Services Commission, which I regard as a very effective safeguard—we shall come to that Chapter of the Bill shortly—and, secondly, there is the general responsibility of the Governor-General and the Governor to safeguard the legitimate interests of the services. In view of these safeguards it is unnecessary to go any further, and it certainly is unnecessary to accept an Amendment such as that which is proposed.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was not at all satisfactory on the ground that the Governor-General could transfer that responsibility to such persons as he may direct, but as the Clause stands the Governor-General, in making appointments, would act on the advice of Ministers, because where nothing is said to the contrary he has got to take the advice of Ministers. If he delegates the power to such persons as he may direct, quite clearly the Ministers' advice must come in. He cannot relieve himself of taking the Ministers' advice by asking some other person to do the job, as the other person must act on the Ministers' advice. If the words "in his discretion" are put
in the Governor-General does not take the Ministers' advice, and logically such other person as he may direct does not take the Ministers' advice. That was the burden of the remarks I tried to make earlier to the effect that, whether right or wrong, it is a real and effective transfer of responsibility to the Governor-General from the Ministers, or to such other person as the Governor-General in his judgment may direct; but, quite clearly, the ultimate decision is taken away from the Ministers. Therefore, the interpretation of the Secretary of State, like the interpretation of the Under-Secretary, still seems to ignore the significance of the words "such person as he may direct" as qualifying the Amendment.

Sir B. PETO: Would the Secretary of State address his mind to the converse proposition? If the Amendment be not accepted and the words remain, does that mean that the Governor-General can never make an appointment of his own volition without consulting the Ministers?

Sir S. HOARE: That is a very wide question. Obviously, the answer is, No. In the matter of the reserved Departments the Governor-General has the sole word as to appointments. Here we are dealing with transferred Departments, and that is a very different question, and I say that in the case of the transferred Departments appointments should be made upon the advice of the Ministers.

9.43 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The Government on this occasion seem to think that we are urging that the Governor-General should always interfere in appointments, but we only want to give him a discretionary power. We all hope that the optimism of my right hon. Friend will prove to be well-founded. On the other hand, we can say without any offence to Indians that the family feeling among them is so great that it is well known that whenever any man attains to any sort of power in India all his brothers and sisters, aunt and cousins expect to get jobs. I am not saying that offensively towards Indians, because that is the recognised thing all through the East. I think the hon. Member who interrupts will admit that that is a very common fact, admitted by everyone who
has come from India with the exception of himself.
At one time I was connected with a big business in India, and I had very frequent reports showing that in this respect the family feeling is very strong. I thought it was generally known. The more one knows of the East the more one knows it to be true. A man is considered a fool if he does not give a job to a relation. Let us be frank about it. Let us go to Indians who have been in the higher posts in India and ask them whether it is not a fact, as I have been told, that their lives have been made a perfect burden owing to the fact that all their numerous relatives regard it as a right that they should be given jobs. Of course we hope that all that is going to change in a night, that under the reforming spirit the whole character of the East is going to change. We are all hopeful, and the right hon. Gentleman is the greatest Micawber among us. He is always hoping that some new way is going to turn up, but the fact remains that we are up against this difficulty and in view of the widespread tendency in this direction would it not be wise for the Governor-General or the Governor to have power, in his judgment, to intervene to see that these tendencies are checked? That is all we ask.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I wonder whether hon. Members who constantly make these allegations about nepotism and jobbery pause to think how they may be regarded from the other side. Such jobbery is not confined to India. While sitting here I like, sometimes, to take up "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and to work out relationships. Of course I know that every appointment here is made on its merits and that it is merely an accident that there are cousins, second cousins and grandsons in this list. It is rather unfortunate that so many allegations are made that everything is done by jobbery on the other side. The Indians may see high appointments going to political friends of people in this country, and of course they do not understand that everybody a Conservative Government appoint is always on merit but that whenever an Indian is appointed it is always a job. That kind of assumption is going too far. We have had it alleged several times in this Committee by Members of the party
opposite. This country was stiff with jobbery about 100 years ago, and the fortunes of many families in this country were made by nepotism; yet they are throwing stones at the Indians all the time and wanting extra precautions. If we had an examination into some of the aristocratic families of England and Scotland only 100 years ago it would be found that the kind of thing they did was far worse than anything done in the East.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Member why he objects to the setting up in India of a public service commission called the Federal Public Service Commission with the same rigidity of powers as our own for taking over the obligations, duties and powers of making appointments?

Mr. ATTLEE: The answer is that I do not object. On the contrary, I was one of those who recommended it on the Indian Statutory Commission, and I voted for it on the Joint Select Committee. I might answer by asking the hon. Member whether he is prepared to allow public appointments in this country to be made by the Civil Service Commission such as to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the judges and so on?

The CHAIRMAN: We had better get back to the Amendment.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) into the history of this country, but if he will examine the list of his own party in this respect—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now proposing to do what he said he did not want to do, and what I murmured to myself he had better not try to do.

Mr. WISE: I will not dispute your Ruling, but I would say that the fact that nepotism exists in other countries is not an argument for extending it. We are proposing to prevent the evil from growing in the new Constitution which we are building, and it is surely incumbent upon us to build the Constitution as free from any form of vice or graft as we can. The Secretary of State rather confined his

reply to the Governor-General. He forgot that there is a second Amendment under discussion at the present time, referring to the Governors of the Provinces. He said that because of the Governor-General the reserved subjects would be well away from any chance of nepotism, but he forgot to remind the Committee that in the Provinces there are very few reserved subjects, and that the bulk of the Provincial appointments will be in the hands of the elected ministers. The Governor, or any person whom he may appoint, is entirely at the mercy of the Ministers' advice. It is quite certain that Indian Ministers must have a great number of obligations to repay before they become Ministers, and the difficulty of their task will not be less by throwing the burden of these appointments on them. Surely it is very much better, without any appeal to them to relieve them of the responsibility of disappointing their relatives. By removing them from the odium which they may incur by refusing to appoint, perhaps, some prominent supporters, we shall make their task much easier.

If this Amendment were accepted it would make it possible for the Governor not to make these appointments himself, but to delegate the making of them to some entirely impartial person who is not affected by the whims of a popular election. In the case of major appointments he might undertake the responsibility himself. Surely it is reasonable to ask that. We are endeavouring to secure the most efficient form of civil administration among people for whom we have a responsibility, and the least we can do is to remove their appointments from the possible swing to and fro of party politics. At the moment we are condemning them to a system very much like that in the United States, where so many offices are dependent upon a wave of popular passion. It is in our power to avoid that. I think the Secretary of State might give us rather more sympathetic consideration.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 248.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[9.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel 
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Break., Newb'y)


Alexander, Sir William
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Burnett, John George


Atholl, Duchess of
Bracken Brendan
Courtauld Major John Swell


Bailey Eric Alfred George
Broadbent, Colonel John
Craddock Sir Reginald Henry


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Templeton, William P.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Donner, P. W.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Wayland, Sir William A.


Doran, Edward
Perkins, Walter R.D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Black pool)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Greene, William P. C
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, David D. (County Down)



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Mr. Emmott and Mr. Wise.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd't'n, S.)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton


Albery, Irving James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Fremantie, Sir Francis
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Magnay, Thomas


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mainwaring, William Henry


Assheton, Ralph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goldie, Noel B.
Martin, Thomas B.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Milne, Charles


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grimston, R. V.
Milner, Major James


Blindell, James
Groves, Thomas E.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bossom, A. C.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boulton, W.W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Harbord, Arthur
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harris, Sir Percy
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastie)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peake, Osbert


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pearson, William G.


Burghley, Lord
Hornby, Frank
Penny, Sir George


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Percy, Lord Eustace


Butler, Richard Austen
Howard, Tom Forrest
Petherick, M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
 Hume Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cassels, James Dale
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rankin, Robert


Champman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Christie James Archibald
 Jamieson, Douglas
Reid, William Altan (Derby)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jenkins, Sir William
Rickard, George William


Clayston, Sir Christopher
 
Ross Taylor Walter (Woodbridge)


Cleary J. J.
Jesson, Major Thomas E 
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel


Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Colforx, Major William Philip
John William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones Morgan (Caerphilliy)
Salt, Edward W.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Salt, Edward W.


Cook Thomas A.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Crooke, Douglas
Kirkpatrick, William M
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sandys, Duncan


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Daggar, George
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Denman Hon. R. D.
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Dickie, John P.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dobble, William
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)


Doran, Edward
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Duggan, Hubert John
Logan, David Gilbert
Somervell, Sir Donald


Dunglass, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Soper, Richard


Eastwood, John Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G. (Partick)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spens, William Patrick


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)




Stevenson, James
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
White, Henry Graham


Stones, James
Train, John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Strauss, Edward A.
Tree, Ronald
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Summersby, Charles H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Wilmot, John


Thompson, Sir Luke
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Thorne, William James
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.



Tinker, John Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor A.G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Watt, Major George Steven H.
Sir Walter Womersley and Major




George Davies.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 12.5, line 36, at the end, to insert:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to make rules regulating the conditions of service of persons employed temporarily on the terms that their employment may he terminated on one month's notice or less, and nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as requiring the rules regulating the conditions of service of any class of persons to extend to any matter which appears to the rule-making authority to be a matter not suitable for regulation by rule in the case of that class.
The Government of India is apprehensive that there might be danger, if there were not some limitation of the rule-making procedure, of having every case of a temporary appointment bound up with a vast mass of regulations. If hon. Members are apprehensive of inserting this proviso, they will be comforted by the special responsibility of the Governor for the different interests of the Services, and if there was any case likely to arise where any interest of any particular member of some subordinate Service appointed for one month was affected by the insertion of these words, I believe that would be covered by the special responsibility to which I have referred.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say whether any restrictions are to be imposed as to the extent to which persons can be employed temporarily?

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: This is a proviso dealing with the services of persons employed temporarily, and in respect of those persons rules will not be made. This is a perfectly sensible proviso, subject to the condition that there is no abuse of it and large numbers of persons are, not going to be regarded as nominally on a monthly basis, but really for life. Every Member of this Committee will be familiar with the difficulties we have ex-
perienced through the recruitment into our Civil Service of men who served in the War, some of them known as the "P" class and some as the "S" class, and will remember the settlement made by Mr. Walter Guinness, as he then was, now Lord Moyne, with regard to those endless troubles. I am very anxious that there shall not be established in India the same kind of difficulty which we have had of large numbers of people in the public service with no security of employment, no pensions at the end, no conditions laid down, and no rules regarding them. I have no objection to this wording here to cover the conditions of the persons taken on temporarily, but I am perturbed lest under the cover of this wording it may be open for large masses of people to be given in fact permanent jobs. I should like to have some assurance from the Under-Secretary that there will be some precautionary words inserted to prevent the kind of trouble arising in India which has given us so much difficulty in this country.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The terms of the proviso are permissive, and I think I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance straight away that it is not intended under the cover of these words to allow temporary appointments to be made which will in fact last for life. As regards his request that the matter should be considered, we have already been in touch with the Government of India on this subject, which is one in which they are very interested. I will look into the point he has raised, knowing the experience which he has had in these matters.

Amendment agreed to.

10.7 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 126, line 32, to leave out Subsection (4).
I do so chiefly in order to get an explanation of this Sub-section. It is not very clear to the uninitiated what the
other provisions of this Act are to which reference is made. Nor am I clear whether persons serving His Majesty in a civil capacity in India include members of the All-India Services recruited by the Secretary of State or whether the Subsection refers to members of the Central and Provincial services.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: The Noble Lady, with her great knowledge of documents in this matter of India, will remember that in paragraph 293 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee it was suggested that local governments should be empowered in the case of the provincial services to regulate, for example, the recruiting conditions of service of personnel locally recruited by them. That is the object of this Sub-section (4). It in fact implements the recommendations in paragraph 293 of the Joint Select Committee's report. To take an example, it will give a province power to regulate the conditions of service of persons serving His Majesty in a civil capacity recruited locally. With regard to her further remarks, I am sure that the Noble Lady will have paid attention to the proviso of Sub-section (4):
provided that nothing in any such Act shall have effect so as to deprive any person of any rights required to be given to him by the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section.
She will also have noticed the further provisions in Sub-section (5), which add a safeguard in respect of the Act so passed under Sub-section (4). In view of the recommendations on this subject of the Joint Select Committee and in view of the power which the Committee would wish to give to a Provincial Legislature in these matters, I think that it would be rather unreasonable to leave out the powers given in this particular Sub-section.

10.10 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Are we to understand that Sub-section (4) relates only to members of a provincial service, and is the Sub-section designed to give the improved status and security which I understand the Joint Select Committee wished given to members of these Services?

Mr. BUTLER: The terms of the Subsection say "the appropriate Legislature in India." In this case, that will apply to the federal service.

Duchess of ATHOLL: To the central services?

Mr. BUTLER: The central services under the control of the Federation.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Would the hon. Gentleman answer my second question: whether it is designed to give these services the improved status and security which the Joint Select Committee wish to give them?

Mr. BUTLER: That is the design of the Bill, to implement what the Joint Select Committee said about the status of the provincial and central services.

Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of the explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.12 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX: Before we pass this Clause finally, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he considers this Clause really satisfies and allays all the fears of the Civil Service in India. In the three Round Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committee the Secretary of State was at great pains to meet the wishes of the politicians of India, but he was very anxious always to avoid giving offence to their feelings. After all, for the Civil Service it is really a matter of their livelihood. This Clause is the most important in the whole Bill as regards their future and the future of their dependants. I would like to ask what steps he has taken to ascertain whether this Clause meets the wishes of the Civil Service in India. We know that the Civil Service will be to a large extent exposed to dangers under this new Constitution. We have heard from very responsible Indian politicians that in their pursuit of economy they will first attack military expenditure and secondly that they would like to attack the pay, Pensions and recruitment of the Civil Service. They would like to get a cheaper Service. I would like to know to what extent the rights of the Civil Service in India are to be safeguarded. They are more responsible than any one in India for building up the conceptions of a country; if that great sub-continent is ever a country, it will be largely the
work of the Civil Service. Before we hand them over to people whom, in the memorandum which they put before the Joint Select Committee, they did not hesitate to say they looked upon with some apprehension, we should make it quite certain that their livelihood is safeguarded.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I wonder whether he could answer one other question. The wording of the Clause seems to me slightly obscure. It would seem that the Secretary of State as the Clause stands can empower some new authority, not specified, who can alter the rules to the disadvantage of the Civil Service. As I understand it there is no indication who such an authority is to be. It might perhaps be an Indian minister. I wonder if my hon. Friend can answer, that point; it is the significance of the lines 8 and 9 particularly.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner), lines 8 and 9 on page 126 give power to the Secretary of State to give directions in the respects referred to in the previous lines, and in those previous lines reference is made to an authority, such for example as the Railway Authority. The Clause is particularly designed so that the position of the officers of the Railway Authority, for example-which of course would make, under a succeeding Clause, rules for its own personnel-shall be safeguarded by the fact that the Secretary of State himself will have to give the directions as to who the new authority shall be. The example I have taken is the new Federal Railway Authority. I hope that this explanation will allay the anxiety of my hon. Friend on that score.
With regard to the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), Clause 230 does not, of course, go quite so far as my hon. and gallant Friend supposes. It does not, for instance, take in the whole question of the livelihood and future of the Services in India, because it refers primarily to Services not recruited by the Secretary of State, and that is the reason for the words,
Except as expressly provided by this Act,
which are the opening words of the Clause. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to Clause 233, he will see that that exception is there made good, and that Clause 233 and the following Clauses deal with the Services expressly recruited by the Secretary of State. I am afraid I must further limit the scope of the Clause, because it is not only in this Clause that we find all the various safeguards as to provision for the future happiness and livelihood of the Services not recruited by the Secretary of State. There are some important questions not coming within the scope of this Clause, which refers to the recruitment and conditions of these Services. Within that limited scope I believe the Clause does fulfil what my hon. and gallant Friend would desire. It does include, for example, in the proviso to Sub-section (4) and in Sub-section (5), very important safeguards for the Services not recruited by the Secretary of State.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked in conclusion how far we have been in touch with the representatives of the Services. I think he may rest assured that, throughout the very long discussions of the last five years, it has been the first wish of my right hon. Friend to keep closely in touch with the Services and to do his best for them, and I believe that, by enacting in this Measure so many of what were formerly only statutory rules, we have done even more for the Services than has been done in the past, in so far as many of these provisions will now be established in the Act. I believe that the Services not recruited by the Secretary of State will appreciate the status which they are given by this Clause, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is the first intention of the Government to do their best, by a provision such as this, to make the future of those Services safe.

10.19 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The Under-Secretary has mentioned that the Secretary of State has done his best to keep in touch with the Services during all this time, but I suppose he would not suggest that the Services have had any real opportunity of expressing their views except through their Service organisation. There is no doubt that a very large number of Civil servants in India have felt rather
gravely the suggestion, which has been made from time to time in this country, that they were in favour of the general proposals embodied in this Clause. The Civil servants, as they have so repeatedly stated, are not permitted to give their views, and they very much resent the fact that it has been stated in public in this country that they have so expressed their views. I think my hon. Friend will agree that through the various Service organisation representations have been made to the effect that they have the very gravest anxiety with regard, not only to this Clause, but to many other points.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I will only reply quite shortly to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am certain that the Services realise that we are trying to do our best for them, and that we have done our best for them in this particular Bill. I have always tried to avoid dragging the Services into any of our discussions. Their job is to do their job in India, and there is no better body of people to do it. We are all, including my hon. and gallant Friend, equally desirous of doing our best for them, and he may rest assured that during these long discussions there have been frequent interchanges with India and that we have done our best to put in the Bill what is considered to be best for all the interests concerned.

CLAUSE 231.—(Application of preceding section to railway services, and officials of courts.)

10.21 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 127, line 23, to leave out "the recruitment of officers generally," and to insert:
recruitment to such posts and in recruitmeat generally for railway purposes shall have due regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with railway services in India and.
The Amendment I am moving bears specially on the case of the Anglo-Indian community. I know very well that the Secretary of State has always been anxious to do what he can to preserve the state of security for their livelihood, and, as far as possible, to insure that
opportunities are given to them and that they are fairly treated. I do not feel at all satisfied that the Anglo-Indian community will receive sufficient protection. They have rendered great services in the past to India. In the customs, the railways, posts and telegraphs, and in many posts in the provincial services, they have fulfilled most useful functions with honesty and ability, but as time goes on they are gradually sinking and the number of appointments open to them are steadily growing fewer and fewer. The reactions on that community are such that, as they get less employment and become more unemployed, the parents have less means with which to educate their children sufficiently well, and as the children are not educated sufficiently well they have failed to secure, on that score, the appointments that used to be available to them. The result is that it goes on in its accumulative effects—less education—less employment, still less education—still less employment.
Although I am well aware that certain efforts have been made to secure their position as far as possible by laying down percentages on the railways and in some of the other services which should be given to Anglo-Indians, yet at the same time I am not satisfied that those percentages will save them, and for this reason. Eight or nine per cent. of railway employment, scattered as it will be over all the railways in India, will make it very difficult to realise at any given time whether the maintenance of that percentage is being jeopardised or not. There is another point. Those percentages at present include large numbers of the elder servants of the railways and the customs who will, before long, he retiring, and it may be practically impossible to fill up every vacancy due to the retirement of the older men who are in a larger proportion perhaps than the percentages available, and it will be very difficult to keep up records of them and for an one in authority to realise exactly how the matter is going. It may be that after a certain time figures can be compiled, and we shall suddenly awake to the fact that Anglo-Indian employment has been falling short of the percentages laid down.
Those appointments start from humble positions. It is a far cry from the appointment of a guard or a ticket collector or an apprentice driver to the Viceregal throne. It is impossible for the Governor-General to keep himself in touch with appointments of that kind. It may be said: "The railway authority, which takes the place of the Railway Board, will be able to prescribe rules and so on, in order to maintain the percentages," but the railway authority cannot come down to details of the appointment of guards and humbler appointments. That will have to be left to the traffic authorities operating each part of the system. It will be the local superintendent on the spot who will have the disposition of appointments of that kind.
Another way in which the proper percentage of Anglo-Indians may be lost is that standards may be prescribed which are really higher than is required for the positions. In certain cases the Anglo-Indian may be less well educated, though he may be a much more responsible person than the other man, and they will turn him down on the ground that he has not the requisite qualifications. One hears of these cases. The representative of the Anglo-Indians was able to quote a good many cases of that kind, in which in one way or another excuses have been made for the non-employment of Anglo Indians. The percentages of 8 or 9 per cent. laid down for these railway appointments are only arrived at after an enormous decline in the appointments of Anglo-Indians under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Even under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms the Governors, in the Instrument of Instructions, were responsible for looking after the interests of the Anglo-Indian community, but I am sorry to say there is no sign of their having done so in this respect. I do not blame them, because the facts never came to their knowledge, and I do not think that in future the facts will come to the knowledge of the authorities. Suppose it does at last come to the knowledge of the railway authorities that there has been a large fall in the appointments which ought to have gone to Anglo-Indians under the percentages laid down. That knowledge may only come after a year or two and in the meantime other people will have been appointed. They cannot turn out all the
Indians who have been appointed. There would be trouble, perhaps a strike, on the railways, if those people were summarily turned out. No railway manager wants to face a strike in the workshops or on the railways in order to save a few Anglo-Indians. I do not like to lay too much stress upon it but I think that incidents of that kind very likely prove a deterrent to Anglo-Indians getting appointments in the proportion which it was intended they should get.
Let me stress the fact that the Anglo-Indian is an important person on the railways at the present time. He is a loyal British subject. He is very unwilling to forgo his British nationality; he clings desperately to his British stock and to the Christian religion. He suffers extraordinary disadvantages because of this. For instance, he cannot live in the same way as an ordinary Indian, he does not receive the same consideration. A driver who is an Englishman can rise to 250 rupees a month, an Anglo-Indian driver can only get up to 150 rupees; whilst an Indian is quite well off on 60 rupees a month. His wants are entirely different, his style of living is entirely different, and for that 60 rupees he gets all that he requires in the social scale in which he lives and was perfectly happy. An Anglo-Indian cannot live on so little. Errors sometimes creep into the ideas of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the Second Reading, in a reference to the grants given to the Anglo-Indians, betrayed an extraordinary misunderstanding, which can only be explained by the fact that the hon. Member must have been misinformed by someone.
It must be remembered that the education of the Indian boy is met by local funds supplemented by provincial funds. The Anglo-Indian boy has only a grant in aid. Schools are kept up by charities, partly by endowments and partly by funds, and the fees are much larger in the case of the Anglo-Indian boy. I do not keep in my head the fees which are paid all over India, but I remember that in my own province the parents of an Indian boy in a primary education school only paid one anna per month. With two months' vacation that is 10 annas, or one shilling a year. In the case of the Anglo-Indian at his Church school, or whatever school it is, his parents pay
five rupees a month, or 80 times as much as the parents of the Indian boy. So now, when the hon. Member for Westhoughton, or one of his colleagues, thinks at all of this subject, and of the disparity between the Anglo-Indian boy and the Indian boy, perhaps he will learn the facts before expressing opinions.
There is another point. Whenever there have been serious railway strikes we have had to depend on the help of the Anglo-Indian because he was not so subject to the intimidation of the strike leaders or agents as was the pure Indian. It is necessary, therefore, to keep the Anglo-Indian factor in the management of railways and telegraphs. You will always find in the history of every strike and every trouble that you have had to depend on the Anglo-Indian. It will be noticed that any Anglo-Indian entering the railway service has to join compulsorily the auxiliary force. Here again he fulfils a most useful function. It is no good ignoring all these facts and saying, "Oh well, the Anglo-Indian has to look after himself now." You have to realise what the facts are and to deal with them. I heard an Indian member of the Secretary of State's Council not long ago make a speech, I think it was in the Caxton Hall, in which he said, "Of course we are willing to give grants for the aid of Anglo-Indian children, but they must be on the same scale as the grants for the Indian boys, and if they want anything more they must pay for it themselves." That is specious enough but it is not justice at all. It must be remembered that the fees paid form a large part of the cost of education, and it is not the case that the Anglo-Indian children are educated at the cost of the State.
At all points of administration in these departments the facts must be borne in mind. Take defence. Railway communications are all connected with defence, and even Customs are. The smuggling of arms is becoming very common, and it is highly important that we should have Anglo-Indians in the Customs, if only for that reason. Telegraphs and so forth are all connected with communications. It is no good trying to ignore the part that the Anglo-Indians play. It is no good saying merely, according to some rules laid down in 1933, that appointments should be kept for them. It is necessary
to see that practical effect is given to that rule in the case of appointments knowledge of which can scarcely come to the Viceroy or the Governor. So far as the railways are concerned, the Governor has no responsibility whatever, because the railways do not come under him. Employment on the railways is under the Federal Railway authority. In view of all the circumstances I think it would be a very valuable record and one to which Anglo-Indians would look, if we put into this particular Clause a special reference of the kind proposed in my Amendment.
I have the greatest sympathy with the Anglo-Indian community and I fear for what may happen to them under the new conditions. Sir Henry Gidney has said that about the time of the war there were only 1,000 Anglo-Indian men unemployed, and that now there are 20,000 unemployed out of a total adult male population of some 60,000. I do not know whether those figures are an overstatement of the case or not, but I have heard the same thing from other sources and I know that there are many cases in which a woman or a girl in a family has been able to get employment as a nurse or in some other capacity while her brothers are unable to find any employment at all, and in those cases the woman or girl has, more or less, to support the whole family. Knowing as I do, the circumstances of many of these people and how they have undoubtedly lost a great number of the employments which were formerly open to them, and lost them almost irretrievably, I fear for what the results may be in the future. I fear particularly for their position in regard to education because without education they cannot qualify for these appointments. I fear also that if this protection is not given to them in every way possible the Anglo-Indians before long will become the flotsam and jetsam of the big cities and finally disappear as the remnants of a depressed class.

10.43 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I need not tell my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) that he and I think entirely alike on this subject. I have been very anxious to see that the Anglo-Indian community is properly safeguarded. Of course we are not concerned here and now with the question of education because what we are now discussing is solely the question
of railway appointments, and after listening to my hon. Friend's speech my original impression of his Amendment remains, namely that it is a most dangerous way of trying to give additional protection to the Anglo-Indian community. I thought we had all agreed that that protection must be primarily the protection which is in the hands of the Governor-General in his discretion. There is a great deal to be said for mentioning the Anglo-Indian community specifically in the Clause, but I ask the Committee to observe what the Amendment would do.
Instead of leaving the Clause as it is to provide that the Federal Railway Authority is bound to follow the instructions given to it by the Governor-General as to allotting a fair proportion of appointments to every community, including of course the Anglo-Indian community the Amendment proposes to give the Federal Railway Authority a separate responsibility from the responsibility of the Governor-General. It is the Federal Railway Authority which is to have due regard to the past associations of Anglo-Indians with the railways, and it is the Governor-General who is to give instructions to the railway authorities. Surely the railway authorities would then say, "I have my responsibility, which is to pay what I think is due regard to the interests of the Anglo-Indian community, and I have also a responsibility to carry out instructions from the Governor-General. If these two responsibilities in my judgment conflict, I shall not obey the instructions given by the Governor-General." It is very dangerous to introduce that kind of division of responsibility into this matter instead of leaving it entirely in the Governor-General's hands and making it quite clear that the Federal Railway Authority must carry out any instruction which is given by the Governor-General. By all means put the duty, if you wish, on the Governor-General to have due regard to the associations of the Anglo-Indian community, but do not throw that responsibility on the Railway Authority.

Sir B. PETO: If this Amendment were accepted, the Federal Railway Authority, in representing to the Governor-General what percentage of Anglo-Indians should be employed, would have due regard to the circumstances stated in the Amendment, and therefore they would recommend to the Governor-General to have regard to the
appointment of Anglo-Indians, and the Governor-General would still have his own authority.

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that that is how it would work. I do not think that the appointments generally in this case are made by the Governor-General, but by the Railway Authority. The Governor-General has to give instructions to the Railway Authority as to whom they are to appoint. In any case, my answer to my hon. Friend is that I dislike a division of responsibility, and I especially dislike a division of responsibility placed in the statute. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities says that the Governor-General does not know these people, but he also says that the Railway Authority does not know them. I think that the safer way is to leave it in the hands of the Governor-General, but, I should be glad to co-operate with my hon. Friend in putting a special protection of the Anglo-Indian community into this Clause in another connection without disturbing the sole responsibility of the Governor-General.

10.48 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend will be ready to co-operate in framing some Amendment which would recognise the special claim of this community for employment on the railway, although I do not think that all of us are convinced by what he says. The Clause as it stands only requires the Governor-General co have regard to every community, without bearing in mind any special services that any community may have rendered to the railways in the past. That seems to me very material, and it is well worth while raising this point on the Amendment in the hope that we may get some other form of words which may perhaps commend itself to my right hon. Friend. The Governor-General has to bear in mind the claims of all communities to have fair representation, presumably more or less according to their numbers without any regard to past services.
It is very necessary that we should recognize the valuable services which the Anglo-Indian community has rendered in the past, for it is not too much to say that they have been the backbone of the three security services of the railways, telegraphs and customs because they
could be relied upon to be loyal to British rule. They have laid us under a great debt to them in the past, a debt which has been recognised by everybody who has considered this question in the last few years. This was recognised in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, the Report of the Statutory Commission, and the proceedings of the first Round Table Conference. In all these documents emphasis was laid on the obligation of the Government to safeguard their position because of the peril in which they stood. In a memorandum submitted to the Joint Select Committee, it was stated that of 1,000 employés in the North Western Railway, only half per cent. of the total were Anglo-Indians. It was pointed out that this was an extreme danger in a railway of that strategic importance. A disloyal telegraphist could disorganise the traffic in a few hours and bring about a position similar to that in 1919 in the Punjab.
A much more comprehensive Amendment than this was brought before the Joint Committee by Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, seeking to secure for the community due weightage in all services, not merely in the railway service. Unless some Amendment of that kind were put into the Constitution to safeguard their position, it was stated that the fate of the community was doomed and India's gain would be their destruction. The Prince of Wales when receiving Anglo-Indian delegates in 1922 said, "You may be confident that Great Britain and the Empire has not forgotten the devoted services of your community to the King Emperor, and that you gave so great an example of your devotion in the Great War." I would suggest that those words gave a pledge to that community which we in Parliament are bound to make good.

10.53 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I think the Committee will permit me to say that, although we have listened perhaps to four or five speeches from the Noble Lady, we have done so with the greatest admiration, for the wealth of knowledge she has displayed has almost converted me to the suffragette movement. I feel that this question we are discussing now is possibly one of those which every Member of this House ought to regard as perhaps his greatest responsibility in considering
the reforms for the Indian Empire. The Anglo-Indian as he is now termed, a generally accepted term, is perhaps one of the most unfortunate of any peoples in the world; not being a member of any special race, the consequence is that almost invariably he falls between two stools. That is why in this Amendment we are asking Members, whatever their views may be upon this question, to give their special consideration to these people.
May I remind the Committee that at one time Englishmen who had retired from the service, or who were actually in the service in the days of the East India Company, were urged to marry Indian women. The consequence was that this vast population has grown up feeling that they are absolutely dependent for their whole future on the British raj. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that. I would like to quote the words of the Montagu-Chelsford report, because it sizes up this matter very adequately, and bears out the claims for the Anglo Indians which we are trying to press on the House. Paragraph 346 reads
Some reference is needed also to the case of the large Anglo-Indian or Eurasian community which on historic grounds has a strong claim on the consideration of the British Government. It is not easy for them, occupying as they do an intermediate position between the races of the East and West, to win for themselves by their own unaided enterprise a secure position in the economy of India. They have been hitherto to a great extent political and economic dependents of the Government, and they would not be strong enough to withstand the effect of changes which omitted to take account of their peculiar situation. We think the Government must acknowledge and must be given effective power to discharge the obligations to see that their interests are not prejudicially affected.
I regret to say that from that day to this the position of Anglo-Indians has gone steadily from bad to worse, and the reason why it is so vital that we should give full consideration to the subject of their employment and why we want to press on the Government to put in words such as are proposed, is that their lot at the present time has really become deplorable—that is not too strong a word to use. I receive every week letters from Anglo-Indians who are trying to strike out for themselves in agricultural cultivation because of the loss of employment upon the railways, and they are making every effort as communities to get
together and establish new colonies with a view to finding a new outlet for their energies. But it is in the Statutory Commission's Report that we have the very strongest argument for giving special consideration to their case, and I would like to read one or two brief paragraphs from it. They say on page 42:
The events of the 12 years which have elapsed since the passage of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report was have not diminished the concern of this community for its future, and we warmly sympathise with its anxieties. Anglo-Indians are found in every part of India, but almost entirely amongst urban populations, and very largely in railway and administrative centres.
The report says further;
For a long time the usefulness of Anglo-Indians in staffing administrative posts was widely recognised. The community has played an honourable part in developing the country and in supporting the forces of order. These avenues of employment are the more important since Anglo-Indians are not cultivators and have riot held any positions in the world of commerce. It is, generally speaking, a poor community and now finds itself, largely as a result of reforms and the progress of Indianisation, exposed to the danger of falilng between two stools.
Coming from such authorities, those words must impress upon us the real need for the people of this country to see that very special consideration is given to this very large community, these hopeless, powerless children in
India. Now I come to the work they have done. It is common knowledge that on the railways and in the post and telegraph services of India these people have been established from very early days in positions of responsibility. Why 1 Because in almost every case they can speak English as well as the vernacular in the locality and the consequence is they have been specially adaptable for all these great services, and—

It being Eleven of the Clock,The CHAIRMANleft the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — VAGRANCY BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.